The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2014
Five-year real world outcomes of GeoForm ring implantation in patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation.
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.
Timek Tomasz A, Hooker Robert L, Collingwood Robin, Davis Alan T, Alguire Craig T, Willekes Charles L, Murphy Edward T, Heiser John C, Patzelt Lawrence H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Reductive ring annuloplasty represents the current standard surgical therapy for ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR); however, the clinical results have been suboptimal. Etiology-specific prostheses such as the GeoForm annuloplasty ring have been designed to better address the annular and subvalvular perturbations associated with IMR. However, clinical experience is limited, and mid-term results are lacking.
METHODS: We reviewed the clinical outcomes of 86 patients who had undergone implantation of a GeoForm ring at our center from 2005 to 2011. Perioperative mortality and clinical parameters were derived from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Follow-up survival was assessed using the Social Security Death Index. Surviving patients were interviewed by telephone for valve-specific follow-up data and to complete the Medical Outcomes Study, short-form, 36-item, quality-of-life questionnaire.
RESULTS: The mean grade of IMR preoperatively was 3.1±0.8 (range, 1-4+), 0.2±0.4 in the immediate postoperative period, and 0.7±0.7 at the last mean follow-up point of 41 months; only 2 patients developed ≥2+IMR during the follow-up period, for a 5-year freedom from recurrent 2+ IMR of 86%. The mean left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters decreased from before to after surgery from 6.0±0.0 cm to 5.3±09 cm and 5.0±0.9 cm to 4.3±1.1 cm, respectively (P<.001). Perioperative mortality was 5.8% (5 of 86), and 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival was 87%, 81%, and 75%, respectively. At the last follow-up point, 80% of patients were in New York Heart Association class I and II, and their quality of life was equal to, or better than, age-matched controls from the general population.
CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of the GeoForm ring offers very good control of IMR, with low rate of recurrent IMR at mid-term follow-up. The use of this prosthesis was associated with good perioperative mortality, mid-term survival, and quality of life.
METHODS: We reviewed the clinical outcomes of 86 patients who had undergone implantation of a GeoForm ring at our center from 2005 to 2011. Perioperative mortality and clinical parameters were derived from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Follow-up survival was assessed using the Social Security Death Index. Surviving patients were interviewed by telephone for valve-specific follow-up data and to complete the Medical Outcomes Study, short-form, 36-item, quality-of-life questionnaire.
RESULTS: The mean grade of IMR preoperatively was 3.1±0.8 (range, 1-4+), 0.2±0.4 in the immediate postoperative period, and 0.7±0.7 at the last mean follow-up point of 41 months; only 2 patients developed ≥2+IMR during the follow-up period, for a 5-year freedom from recurrent 2+ IMR of 86%. The mean left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters decreased from before to after surgery from 6.0±0.0 cm to 5.3±09 cm and 5.0±0.9 cm to 4.3±1.1 cm, respectively (P<.001). Perioperative mortality was 5.8% (5 of 86), and 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival was 87%, 81%, and 75%, respectively. At the last follow-up point, 80% of patients were in New York Heart Association class I and II, and their quality of life was equal to, or better than, age-matched controls from the general population.
CONCLUSIONS: Implantation of the GeoForm ring offers very good control of IMR, with low rate of recurrent IMR at mid-term follow-up. The use of this prosthesis was associated with good perioperative mortality, mid-term survival, and quality of life.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHospital MortalityHumansMaleMichiganMiddle AgedMitral ValveMitral Valve AnnuloplastyMitral Valve InsufficiencyMyocardial IschemiaPostoperative ComplicationsProsthesis DesignQuality of LifeRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSeverity of Illness IndexSurveys and QuestionnairesTime FactorsTreatment Outcome