Journal of cardiac surgery · 2019
Aortic valve repair or replacement in patients with aortic regurgitation: A systematic review and 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.
Wong Chris Ho Ming, Chan Jeffrey Shi Kai, Sanli Dilan, Rahimli Rashad, Harky Amer
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare clinical outcomes between aortic valve repair and replacement in patients with aortic regurgitation.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing clinical outcomes of aortic valve repair vs replacement. Database searched from inception to November 2018.
RESULTS: A total of 1071 patients were analyzed in eight articles. Mean age was similar in both groups of patients (47.2 ± 12.8 vs 48.3 ± 12.7 years, P = 0.83, aortic valve repair and replacement, respectively). The preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was better in the repair group (56.7% ± 4.8 vs 53.3% ± 4.2, P = 0.005). The rate of moderate-to-severe regurgitation and bicuspid aortic valve were similar in both cohorts (81% vs 78%, P = 0.90% and 58% vs 55%, P = 0.46). In-hospital and 1-year mortality was lower in repair cohort, although not reaching statistical significance (1.3% vs 3.6%, P = 0.12; 5.9% vs 9.3%, P = 0.77). Reoperation rate was higher in repair patients at 1 year (8.8% vs 3.7%, P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: Aortic valve repair offers comparable perioperative outcomes to aortic valve replacement in aortic regurgitation patients at the expense of higher late reintervention rate. Larger trials with long-term follow-up are required to confirm the long-term benefits of aortic valve repair.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing clinical outcomes of aortic valve repair vs replacement. Database searched from inception to November 2018.
RESULTS: A total of 1071 patients were analyzed in eight articles. Mean age was similar in both groups of patients (47.2 ± 12.8 vs 48.3 ± 12.7 years, P = 0.83, aortic valve repair and replacement, respectively). The preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was better in the repair group (56.7% ± 4.8 vs 53.3% ± 4.2, P = 0.005). The rate of moderate-to-severe regurgitation and bicuspid aortic valve were similar in both cohorts (81% vs 78%, P = 0.90% and 58% vs 55%, P = 0.46). In-hospital and 1-year mortality was lower in repair cohort, although not reaching statistical significance (1.3% vs 3.6%, P = 0.12; 5.9% vs 9.3%, P = 0.77). Reoperation rate was higher in repair patients at 1 year (8.8% vs 3.7%, P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION: Aortic valve repair offers comparable perioperative outcomes to aortic valve replacement in aortic regurgitation patients at the expense of higher late reintervention rate. Larger trials with long-term follow-up are required to confirm the long-term benefits of aortic valve repair.