Journal of cardiac surgery · 2021
Benefits of mitral valve repair over replacement in the elderly: 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.
Di Tommaso Ettorino, Rapetto Filippo, Guida Gustavo A, Zakkar Mustafa, Bruno Vito D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Mitral valve (MV) repair has demonstrated excellent short- and long-term outcomes, however, its merit in the elderly population is still debated. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that have compared the MV repair to replacement in the elderly population.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for any study published on MV surgery on elderly patients (≥75 years old). A pooled risk-ratio meta-analysis was done to evaluate short-term mortality, postoperative complications, surgical timings, and long-term survival rates.
RESULTS: A total of nine retrospective observational studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Pooled meta-analysis showed a reduced risk of short-term mortality for the MV repair group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.41 [0.24-0.71], p-value = .005). Postoperative neurological complications were in favor of repair, although not significantly (RR = 0.49 [0.21-1.11], p-value = .07). Operative timings (cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp time) were not different between the groups although no data were available on the complexity of the repairs. Long-term survival rates were in favor of the repairs (pooled treatment effect of -0.47 [-0.64; -0.29], p = .005).
CONCLUSIONS: MV surgery is a safe and effective procedure for the elderly. MV repair demonstrated better short-term outcomes compared to replacement. Long-term survival rates are significantly better after repair.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for any study published on MV surgery on elderly patients (≥75 years old). A pooled risk-ratio meta-analysis was done to evaluate short-term mortality, postoperative complications, surgical timings, and long-term survival rates.
RESULTS: A total of nine retrospective observational studies were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Pooled meta-analysis showed a reduced risk of short-term mortality for the MV repair group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.41 [0.24-0.71], p-value = .005). Postoperative neurological complications were in favor of repair, although not significantly (RR = 0.49 [0.21-1.11], p-value = .07). Operative timings (cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp time) were not different between the groups although no data were available on the complexity of the repairs. Long-term survival rates were in favor of the repairs (pooled treatment effect of -0.47 [-0.64; -0.29], p = .005).
CONCLUSIONS: MV surgery is a safe and effective procedure for the elderly. MV repair demonstrated better short-term outcomes compared to replacement. Long-term survival rates are significantly better after repair.