OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare long-term outcomes between percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty and open heart surgery. METHODS: The study evaluated 402 patients who underwent percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty and 159 patients who underwent open heart surgery between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2000. The rates of cardiovascular death or repeated intervention (redo percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty or open heart surgery) were determined over a median follow-up of 109 months (mean + or - SD, 106 + or - 27). The therapeutic effects on adverse outcomes were estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting differences in the severity of illness before intervention. The effects of the cardiac rhythm and echocardiographic score were also tested. RESULTS: The observed (unadjusted) event-free survival was similar for both groups, and the hazard ratio for the clinical events after percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty as compared with after open heart surgery was 1.510 (95% confidence interval, 0.914-2.496; P = .1079). However, the adjusted hazard ratio was 3.729 (95% confidence interval, 1.963-7.082; P < .0001), showing a higher event-free survival in the open heart surgery group. The adjusted hazard ratio after percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty as compared with after open heart surgery in patients with echocardiographic scores of 8 or more and atrial fibrillation were 5.348 (95% confidence interval, 2.504-11.422; P < .001) and 3.440 (95% confidence interval, 1.805-6.555; P = .0002), respectively, whereas the hazard ratio in patients with echocardiographic scores less than 8 and normal sinus rhythm did not show differences. CONCLUSIONS: Open heart surgery was associated with a higher adjusted rate of long-term event-free survival than percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty. Patients with high echocardiographic scores or atrial fibrillation showed better outcomes after open heart surgery. Copyright 2010 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare long-term outcomes between percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty and open heart surgery. METHODS: The study evaluated 402 patients who underwent percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty and 159 patients who underwent open heart surgery between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2000. The rates of cardiovascular death or repeated intervention (redo percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty or open heart surgery) were determined over a median follow-up of 109 months (mean + or - SD, 106 + or - 27). The therapeutic effects on adverse outcomes were estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model adjusting differences in the severity of illness before intervention. The effects of the cardiac rhythm and echocardiographic score were also tested. RESULTS: The observed (unadjusted) event-free survival was similar for both groups, and the hazard ratio for the clinical events after percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty as compared with after open heart surgery was 1.510 (95% confidence interval, 0.914-2.496; P = .1079). However, the adjusted hazard ratio was 3.729 (95% confidence interval, 1.963-7.082; P < .0001), showing a higher event-free survival in the open heart surgery group. The adjusted hazard ratio after percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty as compared with after open heart surgery in patients with echocardiographic scores of 8 or more and atrial fibrillation were 5.348 (95% confidence interval, 2.504-11.422; P < .001) and 3.440 (95% confidence interval, 1.805-6.555; P = .0002), respectively, whereas the hazard ratio in patients with echocardiographic scores less than 8 and normal sinus rhythm did not show differences. CONCLUSIONS: Open heart surgery was associated with a higher adjusted rate of long-term event-free survival than percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty. Patients with high echocardiographic scores or atrial fibrillation showed better outcomes after open heart surgery. Copyright 2010 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Hunaid A Vohra; Robert N Whistance; Apostolos Roubelakis; Andrew Burton; Clifford W Barlow; Geoffrey M K Tsang; Steve A Livesey; Sunil K Ohri Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2012-01-31
Authors: Osama I I Soliman; Ashraf M Anwar; Ahmed K Metawei; Jackie S McGhie; Marcel L Geleijnse; Folkert J Ten Cate Journal: Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep Date: 2011-07-09
Authors: Darae Kim; Hyemoon Chung; Jong Ho Nam; Dong Hyuk Park; Chi Young Shim; Jung Sun Kim; Hyuk Jae Chang; Geu Ru Hong; Jong Won Ha Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 2.759
Authors: A M Ambari; B Setianto; A Santoso; B Dwiputra; B Radi; A A Alkatiri; A B Adji; E Susilowati; F Tulrahmi; M J M Cramer; P A Doevendans Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Fernando Luís Scolari; Daniel Schneider; Débora Vacaro Fogazzi; Miguel Gus; Marciane Maria Rover; Marcely Gimenes Bonatto; Gustavo Neves de Araújo; André Zimerman; Daniel Sganzerla; Lívia Adams Goldraich; Cassiano Teixeira; Gilberto Friedman; Carisi Anne Polanczyk; Luis Eduardo Rohde; Regis Goulart Rosa; Rodrigo Vugman Wainstein Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 2.298