Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2017
Impact of concomitant mitral valve repair for severe mitral regurgitation at the time of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device insertion.
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.
Sandoval Elena, Singh Steve K, Carillo Julius A, Baldwin Andrew C W, Ono Masahiro, Anand Jatin, Frazier O H, Mallidi Hari R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Mitral regurgitation (MR) is common in patients with end-stage heart failure. We assessed the effect of performing concomitant mitral valve repair during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation in patients with severe preoperative MR.
METHODS: We performed a single-centre, retrospective review of all patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation between December 1999 and December 2013 (n = 469). Patients with severe preoperative MR (n = 78) were identified and then stratified according to whether they underwent concomitant valve repair. Univariate and survival analyses were performed, and multivariable regression was used to determine predictors of survival.
RESULTS: Of the 78 patients with severe MR, 21 underwent valve repair at the time of CF-LVAD implantation (repair group) and 57 did not (non-repair group). A comparison of the 2 groups showed significant differences between groups: INTERMACS I 16.985 vs 9.52%, (P = 0.039), cardiopulmonary bypass time 82.09 vs 109.4 min (P = 0.0042) and the use of HeartMate II 63.16 vs 100% (P = 0.001). Survival analysis suggested trends towards improved survival and a lower incidence of heart failure-related readmissions in the repair group. Multivariable regression analysis showed no significant independent predictors of survival (mitral valve repair: odds ratio 0.4, 95% confidence interval 0.8-1.5; P = 0.2).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of statistical significance, trends towards improved survival and a lower incidence of heart failure events suggest that mitral valve repair may be beneficial in patients undergoing CF-LVAD implantation. Given the known relationship between severe MR and mortality, further study is encouraged to confirm the value of mitral valve repair in these patients.
METHODS: We performed a single-centre, retrospective review of all patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation between December 1999 and December 2013 (n = 469). Patients with severe preoperative MR (n = 78) were identified and then stratified according to whether they underwent concomitant valve repair. Univariate and survival analyses were performed, and multivariable regression was used to determine predictors of survival.
RESULTS: Of the 78 patients with severe MR, 21 underwent valve repair at the time of CF-LVAD implantation (repair group) and 57 did not (non-repair group). A comparison of the 2 groups showed significant differences between groups: INTERMACS I 16.985 vs 9.52%, (P = 0.039), cardiopulmonary bypass time 82.09 vs 109.4 min (P = 0.0042) and the use of HeartMate II 63.16 vs 100% (P = 0.001). Survival analysis suggested trends towards improved survival and a lower incidence of heart failure-related readmissions in the repair group. Multivariable regression analysis showed no significant independent predictors of survival (mitral valve repair: odds ratio 0.4, 95% confidence interval 0.8-1.5; P = 0.2).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of statistical significance, trends towards improved survival and a lower incidence of heart failure events suggest that mitral valve repair may be beneficial in patients undergoing CF-LVAD implantation. Given the known relationship between severe MR and mortality, further study is encouraged to confirm the value of mitral valve repair in these patients.