The Journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024
Moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation in ischemic heart disease: to operate or not? A meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alsuayri Razan A, Alassiri Abdullah K, Awad Ahmed K, Faleh Mohammed N, Baqays Rasha T, Porqueddu Massimo
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Deciding whether to perform coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) alone or in combination with mitral valve repair is a common dilemma encountered by surgeons when treating patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation, a common condition related to coronary artery disease. Although ischemic mitral regurgitation after CABG has been linked to unfavorable results, the benefits of including mitral valve repair are still unknown. This discrepancy led us to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether combining CABG with mitral valve surgery leads to better clinical results than CABG alone.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies comparing the results of CABG versus CABG with mitral valve replacement were searched in the databases of PubMed and Google Scholar. There were six randomized clinical trials included in this study.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We analyzed 852 patients' data. There were no significant variations between patients who acquired CABG alone or CABG+(MVR) in terms of their risk of death at one year, stroke, atrial fibrillation, or hospitalization for heart failure. For recurrent/residual mitral regurgitation; it revealed an RR=5.42, 95% CI, 0.77 to 37.98, and a P value of =0.065. According to the analysis of study heterogeneity, no apparent heterogeneity was identified in the outcomes of death after one year, stroke, atrial fibrillation, or hospitalization for heart failure. However, the outcome of recurrent or residual mitral regurgitation showed significant variation (I2=66%).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent CABG alone versus CABG plus MVR did not differ significantly from one another. However, the comparison of CABG alone with CABG plus MVR underlines the need for customized treatment plans based on the unique characteristics of each patient.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies comparing the results of CABG versus CABG with mitral valve replacement were searched in the databases of PubMed and Google Scholar. There were six randomized clinical trials included in this study.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We analyzed 852 patients' data. There were no significant variations between patients who acquired CABG alone or CABG+(MVR) in terms of their risk of death at one year, stroke, atrial fibrillation, or hospitalization for heart failure. For recurrent/residual mitral regurgitation; it revealed an RR=5.42, 95% CI, 0.77 to 37.98, and a P value of =0.065. According to the analysis of study heterogeneity, no apparent heterogeneity was identified in the outcomes of death after one year, stroke, atrial fibrillation, or hospitalization for heart failure. However, the outcome of recurrent or residual mitral regurgitation showed significant variation (I2=66%).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent CABG alone versus CABG plus MVR did not differ significantly from one another. However, the comparison of CABG alone with CABG plus MVR underlines the need for customized treatment plans based on the unique characteristics of each patient.