Heart Asia · 2017
Outcomes after mitral valve surgery for rheumatic heart disease.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Russell E Anne, Walsh Warren F, Reid Christopher M, Tran Lavinia, Brown Alex, Bennetts Jayme S, Baker Robert A, Tam Robert, Maguire Graeme P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To further the understanding of the factors influencing outcome following rheumatic heart disease (RHD) related mitral valve surgery, which globally remains an important cause of heart disease and a particular problem in Indigenous Australians.
METHODS: The Australian Cardiac Surgery Database was utilised to assess outcomes following mitral valve repair and replacement for RHD and non-RHD valve disease. The association with aetiology, demographics, comorbidities, preoperative status and operative procedure was evaluated.
RESULTS: Mitral valve repairs and replacements undertaken in Australia were analysed from 119 and 1078 RHD surgical procedures and 3279 and 2400 non-RHD procedures, respectively. RHD mitral valve repair, compared with replacement, resulted in a slightly shorter hospital stay and more reoperation for valve dysfunction, but no difference in 30-day survival. In unadjusted survival analysis to 5 years, RHD mitral valve repair and replacement were no different (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.7), non-RHD repair was superior to replacement (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.0), RHD and non-RHD repair were no different (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.7), and RHD replacement was superior to non-RHD (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9). None of these differences persisted in adjusted analyses and there was no difference in long-term survival for Indigenous Australians.
CONCLUSION: In this large prospective cohort study we have demonstrated that adjusted long-term survival following RHD mitral valve repair surgery in Australia is no different to replacement and no different to non-RHD. Interpretation of valve surgery outcome requires careful consideration of patient factors that may also influence survival.
METHODS: The Australian Cardiac Surgery Database was utilised to assess outcomes following mitral valve repair and replacement for RHD and non-RHD valve disease. The association with aetiology, demographics, comorbidities, preoperative status and operative procedure was evaluated.
RESULTS: Mitral valve repairs and replacements undertaken in Australia were analysed from 119 and 1078 RHD surgical procedures and 3279 and 2400 non-RHD procedures, respectively. RHD mitral valve repair, compared with replacement, resulted in a slightly shorter hospital stay and more reoperation for valve dysfunction, but no difference in 30-day survival. In unadjusted survival analysis to 5 years, RHD mitral valve repair and replacement were no different (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.7), non-RHD repair was superior to replacement (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.0), RHD and non-RHD repair were no different (HR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.7), and RHD replacement was superior to non-RHD (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.9). None of these differences persisted in adjusted analyses and there was no difference in long-term survival for Indigenous Australians.
CONCLUSION: In this large prospective cohort study we have demonstrated that adjusted long-term survival following RHD mitral valve repair surgery in Australia is no different to replacement and no different to non-RHD. Interpretation of valve surgery outcome requires careful consideration of patient factors that may also influence survival.