Journal of cardiac surgery · 2020
Papillary muscle intervention vs mitral ring annuloplasty in ischemic mitral regurgitation.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание 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.
Micali Linda R, Qadrouh Mohammad N, Parise Orlando, Parise Gianmarco, Matteucci Francesco, de Jong Monique, Tetta Cecilia, Moula Amalia I, Johnson Daniel M, Gelsomino Sandro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The main pathophysiological factor of chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR) is the outward displacement of the papillary muscles (PMs) leading to leaflet tethering. For this reason, papillary muscle intervention (PMI) in combination with mitral ring annuloplasty (MRA) has recently been introduced into clinical practice to correct this displacement, and to reduce the recurrence of regurgitation.
METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted comparing the outcomes of PMI and MRA performed in combination vs MRA performed alone, in terms of MR recurrence and left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR). A meta-regression was carried out to investigate the impact of the type of PMI procedure on the outcomes.
RESULTS: MR recurrence in patients undergoing both PMI and MRA was lower than in those who only had MRA (log incidence rate ratio, -0.66; lower-upper limits, -1.13 to 0.20; I2 = 0.0%; p = .44; Egger's test: intercept 0.35 [-0.78 to 1.51]; p = .42). The group with both PMI and MRA and that with only MRA showed a slightly higher reduction in left ventricular diameters (-5.94%; -8.75% to 3.13%,). However, in both groups, LVRR was <10%. No difference was detected between PM relocation/repositioning and papillary muscle approximation in terms of LVRR (p = .33).
CONCLUSIONS: Using PMI and MRA together has a lower MR recurrence than using MRA alone. No significant LVRR was observed between the two groups nor between the PMI techniques employed.
METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted comparing the outcomes of PMI and MRA performed in combination vs MRA performed alone, in terms of MR recurrence and left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR). A meta-regression was carried out to investigate the impact of the type of PMI procedure on the outcomes.
RESULTS: MR recurrence in patients undergoing both PMI and MRA was lower than in those who only had MRA (log incidence rate ratio, -0.66; lower-upper limits, -1.13 to 0.20; I2 = 0.0%; p = .44; Egger's test: intercept 0.35 [-0.78 to 1.51]; p = .42). The group with both PMI and MRA and that with only MRA showed a slightly higher reduction in left ventricular diameters (-5.94%; -8.75% to 3.13%,). However, in both groups, LVRR was <10%. No difference was detected between PM relocation/repositioning and papillary muscle approximation in terms of LVRR (p = .33).
CONCLUSIONS: Using PMI and MRA together has a lower MR recurrence than using MRA alone. No significant LVRR was observed between the two groups nor between the PMI techniques employed.