The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2022
Contemporary Management of Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation at Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.
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.
Pienta Michael J, Theurer Patty, He Chang, Clark Melissa, Haft Jonathan, Bolling Steven F, Willekes Charles, Nemeh Hassan, Prager Richard L, Romano Matthew A, Ailawadi Gorav, Michigan Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Quality Collaborative
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines for the treatment of moderate or severe ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) have changed. This study assessed the real-world impact of changing guidelines on the management of IMR during CABG over time. We hypothesized that the utilization of mitral valve repair for IMR would decrease over time, whereas mitral valve replacement for severe IMR would increase.
METHODS: Patients undergoing CABG in a statewide collaborative database (2011-2020) were stratified by severity of IMR. Trends in mitral valve repair or replacement were evaluated. To account for differences of the patients, propensity score-matched analyses were used to compare patients with and without mitral intervention.
RESULTS: A total of 11,676 patients met inclusion criteria, including 1355 (11.6%) with moderate IMR and 390 (3.3%) with severe IMR. The proportion of patients undergoing mitral intervention for moderate IMR decreased over time (2011, 17.7%; 2020, 7.5%; Ptrend = .001), whereas mitral replacement for severe IMR remained stable (2011, 11.1%; 2020, 13.3%; Ptrend = .14). Major morbidity was higher for patients with moderate IMR who underwent mitral intervention (29.1% vs 19.9%; P = .005). In a propensity analysis of 249 well-matched pairs, there was no difference in major morbidity (29.3% with mitral intervention vs 23.7% without; P = .16) or operative mortality (1.2% vs 2.4%; P = .5).
CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with recent guideline updates, patients with moderate IMR were less likely to undergo mitral repair. However, the rate of replacement for severe IMR did not change. Mitral intervention during CABG did not increase operative mortality or morbidity.
METHODS: Patients undergoing CABG in a statewide collaborative database (2011-2020) were stratified by severity of IMR. Trends in mitral valve repair or replacement were evaluated. To account for differences of the patients, propensity score-matched analyses were used to compare patients with and without mitral intervention.
RESULTS: A total of 11,676 patients met inclusion criteria, including 1355 (11.6%) with moderate IMR and 390 (3.3%) with severe IMR. The proportion of patients undergoing mitral intervention for moderate IMR decreased over time (2011, 17.7%; 2020, 7.5%; Ptrend = .001), whereas mitral replacement for severe IMR remained stable (2011, 11.1%; 2020, 13.3%; Ptrend = .14). Major morbidity was higher for patients with moderate IMR who underwent mitral intervention (29.1% vs 19.9%; P = .005). In a propensity analysis of 249 well-matched pairs, there was no difference in major morbidity (29.3% with mitral intervention vs 23.7% without; P = .16) or operative mortality (1.2% vs 2.4%; P = .5).
CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with recent guideline updates, patients with moderate IMR were less likely to undergo mitral repair. However, the rate of replacement for severe IMR did not change. Mitral intervention during CABG did not increase operative mortality or morbidity.