Seminars in cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia · 2020
New or Worsened Mitral Regurgitation After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Kumar Nicolas, Kumar Julia E, Hussain Nasir, Gorelik Leonid, Essandoh Michael K, Whitson Bryan A, Bhatt Amar M, Flores Antolin S, Hachem Ali, Sawyer Tamara R, Iyer Manoj H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: New or worsened mitral regurgitation (MR) is an uncommon yet serious complication after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). While there have been numerous reports of its occurrence, there is little consensus regarding its presentation and management. This systematic review summarizes the evidence in the current literature surrounding new or worsened MR after SAVR and analyzes its potential implications.
METHODS: Databases were examined for all articles and abstracts reporting on new or worsened MR after SAVR. Data collected included number of patients studied; patient characteristics; incidences of new or worsened MR; timing of diagnosis; and treatment.
RESULTS: Thirty-six full-text citations were included in this review. The prevalence of new or worsened MR after SAVR was 8.4%. Sixteen percent of new MR occurrences were from an organic etiology, and 83% of new MR occurrences were that of a functional etiology. Most diagnoses were made in the late or unspecified postoperative period using echocardiography (range: 0 minutes to 18 years postoperatively). While no patients died from this complication, 7.7% of patients (16 out of 207) required emergent procedural re-intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review underscores the importance of identifying new or worsened MR following SAVR and accurate scoring of MR severity to guide treatment. It also outlines the associated clinical measures commonly documented following this complication, and the usefulness of transesophageal echocardiography for the detection of significant MR. These results reflect the current, limited state of the literature on this topic and warrant further investigation into MR detection and management strategies in SAVR patients.
METHODS: Databases were examined for all articles and abstracts reporting on new or worsened MR after SAVR. Data collected included number of patients studied; patient characteristics; incidences of new or worsened MR; timing of diagnosis; and treatment.
RESULTS: Thirty-six full-text citations were included in this review. The prevalence of new or worsened MR after SAVR was 8.4%. Sixteen percent of new MR occurrences were from an organic etiology, and 83% of new MR occurrences were that of a functional etiology. Most diagnoses were made in the late or unspecified postoperative period using echocardiography (range: 0 minutes to 18 years postoperatively). While no patients died from this complication, 7.7% of patients (16 out of 207) required emergent procedural re-intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review underscores the importance of identifying new or worsened MR following SAVR and accurate scoring of MR severity to guide treatment. It also outlines the associated clinical measures commonly documented following this complication, and the usefulness of transesophageal echocardiography for the detection of significant MR. These results reflect the current, limited state of the literature on this topic and warrant further investigation into MR detection and management strategies in SAVR patients.