[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This study was undertaken to compare mitral valve repair and replacement as treatments for ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD). Specifically, we sought to determine whether the choice of mitral valve procedure affected survival, and discover which patients were predicted to benefit from mitral valve repair and which from replacement.
A total of 218 consecutive patients underwent either mitral valve repair (MVP, n = 112) or mitral valve replacement (MVR, n = 106). We retrospectively reviewed the clinical material, operation methods, echocardiography check during operation and follow-up. Patients details and follow-up outcomes were compared using multivariate and Kaplan-Meier analyses.
No statistical difference was found between the two groups in term of intraoperative data. Early mortality was 3.2% (MVP 2.7% and MVR 3.8%). At discharge, Left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic diameter and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were improved more in the MVP group than MVR group (P < 0.05), however, in follow-up no statistically significant difference was observed between the MVR and MVP group (P > 0.05). Follow-up mitral regurgitation grade was significantly improved in the MVR group compared with the MVP group (P < 0.05). The Kaplan-Meier survival estimates at 1, 3, and 5 years were similar between MVP and MVR group. Logistic regression revealed poor survival was associated with old age(#75), preoperative renal insufficiency and low left ventricular ejection fraction (< 30%).
Mitral valve repair is the procedure of choice in the majority of patients having surgery for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation with left ventricular dysfunction. Early results of MVP treatment seem to be satisfactory, but several lines of data indicate that mitral valve repair provided less long-term benefit than mitral valve replacement in the LVD patients.
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 11/2010; 5(1):107. DOI:10.1186/1749-8090-5-107 · 1.03 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the safety and the cost-effectiveness of using preoperative IABP as support compared with postoperative IABP treatment in coronary patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (SLVD) who is undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB), including early outcomes, hospital mortality and morbidity, and mid-term follow-up outcomes.
Between March 2000 and December 2008, we prospectively and randomly studied the insertion of preoperative IABP in 115 (7.4%) and postoperative IABP in 106 (6.8%) of the 1560 consecutive patients. Group A is preoperative IABP therapy. Group B is postoperative IABP therapy.
There was no significant difference in the number of grafts used between the two groups. Completeness of revascularization did not differ between the two groups. The statistically significant difference was hospital mortality (2.6% in group A vs. 3.8% in group B) (p < 0.05). And there was significant reduction in postoperative low cardiac output, malignant arrhythmia, acute renal failure and length of stay in ICU in group A, compared with group B (p < 0.05). In the two groups, six-, 12-, 24- and 48-month survival rates were similar. In the study the degree of improvement in angina and quality of life did not differ significantly between the two groups.
The use of preoperative IABP in SLVD patients undergoing OPCAB is of safety and effectiveness. The combined use of preoperative IABP and OPCAB allows complete revascularization in SLVD patients with an important reduction in operative mortality and excellent mid-term results.
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 07/2009; 4(1):39. DOI:10.1186/1749-8090-4-39 · 1.03 Impact Factor