The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2016
Valve Repair Is Superior to Replacement in Most Patients With Coexisting Degenerative Mitral Valve and Coronary Artery Diseases.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Javadikasgari Hoda, Gillinov A Marc, Idrees Jay J, Mihaljevic Tomislav, Suri Rakesh M, Raza Sajjad, Houghtaling Penny L, Svensson Lars G, Navia José L, Mick Stephanie L, Desai Milind Y, Sabik Joseph F, Blackstone Eugene H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: For mitral regurgitation (MR) from degenerative mitral disease in patients with coexisting coronary artery disease, the appropriate surgical strategy remains controversial.
METHODS: From 1985 to 2011, 1,071 adults (age 70 ± 9.3 years, 77% men) underwent combined coronary artery bypass grafting and either mitral valve repair (n = 872, 81%) or replacement (n=199, 19%) for degenerative MR. Propensity matching (177 patient pairs, 89% of possible matches) was used to compare early outcomes and time-related recurrence of MR after mitral valve repair, mitral valve reoperation, and mortality. Risk factors for death were identified with multivariable, multiphase hazard-function analysis.
RESULTS: Patients undergoing valve replacement were older, with more valve calcification and a higher prevalence of preoperative atrial fibrillation and heart failure (all p < .0001). Among matched pairs, mitral replacement versus repair was associated with higher hospital mortality (5.0% vs 1.0%, p = .0001) and more postoperative renal failure (7.0% vs 3.2%, p = .01), reexplorations for bleeding (6.0% vs 3.1%, p = .05), and respiratory failure (14% vs 4.7%, p < .0001). Of matched patients undergoing repair, 18% had MR above 3+ by 5 years. Mitral valve durability was similar between matched groups, but survival at 15 years was 18% after replacement versus 52% after repair. Nomograms from the multivariable equation revealed that in 94% of cases, 10-year survival was calculated to be higher after repair than after replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coexisting degenerative mitral valve and coronary artery diseases, mitral valve repair is expected to confer a long-term survival advantage over replacement despite some recurrence of MR. When feasible, it is the procedure of choice for these patients.
METHODS: From 1985 to 2011, 1,071 adults (age 70 ± 9.3 years, 77% men) underwent combined coronary artery bypass grafting and either mitral valve repair (n = 872, 81%) or replacement (n=199, 19%) for degenerative MR. Propensity matching (177 patient pairs, 89% of possible matches) was used to compare early outcomes and time-related recurrence of MR after mitral valve repair, mitral valve reoperation, and mortality. Risk factors for death were identified with multivariable, multiphase hazard-function analysis.
RESULTS: Patients undergoing valve replacement were older, with more valve calcification and a higher prevalence of preoperative atrial fibrillation and heart failure (all p < .0001). Among matched pairs, mitral replacement versus repair was associated with higher hospital mortality (5.0% vs 1.0%, p = .0001) and more postoperative renal failure (7.0% vs 3.2%, p = .01), reexplorations for bleeding (6.0% vs 3.1%, p = .05), and respiratory failure (14% vs 4.7%, p < .0001). Of matched patients undergoing repair, 18% had MR above 3+ by 5 years. Mitral valve durability was similar between matched groups, but survival at 15 years was 18% after replacement versus 52% after repair. Nomograms from the multivariable equation revealed that in 94% of cases, 10-year survival was calculated to be higher after repair than after replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coexisting degenerative mitral valve and coronary artery diseases, mitral valve repair is expected to confer a long-term survival advantage over replacement despite some recurrence of MR. When feasible, it is the procedure of choice for these patients.