Xiang Hu1, Qiang Zhao. 1. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Rui Jin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong, University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, PR China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Mitral annulus reconstruction is now a common surgical procedure for the treatment of mitral regurgitation. However, there are still controversies in the selection of materials for annuloplasty in the clinical controlled studies available. The purpose of the present systematic review of the literature is to address whether a flexible ring is superior to a rigid ring in terms of improvement in clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken of all clinical control trials comparing the outcomes of mitral annuloplasty surgery with the flexible and rigid ring in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. RESULTS: Overall, 12 published trials were identified as being eligible for overview and were included in the meta-analysis study between 1966 and 2010: four prospective randomized and eight case-control studies. Combined hazard ratios suggested that the flexible annuloplasty ring had no favorable impact on survival: the mean (95% confidence interval (CI)) was 1.24 (0.24-2.24). From the mortality data at maximum follow-up ranging 35-61 months, there was no significant difference on mortality, reoperation, and significant recurrent mitral regurgitation between the two rings. Also, we were not able to find an improvement by flexible rings on shortening fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and end-diastolic and end-systolic diameter. There was a significantly higher ejection fraction in arms for flexible rings relative to rigid rings with pooled standardized mean deviation (SMD) 0.29, 95% CI: 0.06-0.52, p=0.015. Finally, compared to the rigid annuloplasty ring, patients implanted with flexible ones presented significantly a far better effect preserving the mitral valve area: SMD 0.54, 95% CI: 0.13-0.95, p=0.01, and less constrictive for blood flow across the mitral valve, with the pooled SMD of peak velocity (flexible vs rigid: -0.63, 95% CI: -1.12 to -0.13, p=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Except for the improvement in ejection fraction and preserving the mitral valve area effects in the flexible cases, it remains comparable with regard to overall survival, mortality, reoperation, regurgitant recurrence, and left ventricular performance between the flexible and rigid ring.
OBJECTIVES: Mitral annulus reconstruction is now a common surgical procedure for the treatment of mitral regurgitation. However, there are still controversies in the selection of materials for annuloplasty in the clinical controlled studies available. The purpose of the present systematic review of the literature is to address whether a flexible ring is superior to a rigid ring in terms of improvement in clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken of all clinical control trials comparing the outcomes of mitral annuloplasty surgery with the flexible and rigid ring in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. RESULTS: Overall, 12 published trials were identified as being eligible for overview and were included in the meta-analysis study between 1966 and 2010: four prospective randomized and eight case-control studies. Combined hazard ratios suggested that the flexible annuloplasty ring had no favorable impact on survival: the mean (95% confidence interval (CI)) was 1.24 (0.24-2.24). From the mortality data at maximum follow-up ranging 35-61 months, there was no significant difference on mortality, reoperation, and significant recurrent mitral regurgitation between the two rings. Also, we were not able to find an improvement by flexible rings on shortening fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and end-diastolic and end-systolic diameter. There was a significantly higher ejection fraction in arms for flexible rings relative to rigid rings with pooled standardized mean deviation (SMD) 0.29, 95% CI: 0.06-0.52, p=0.015. Finally, compared to the rigid annuloplasty ring, patients implanted with flexible ones presented significantly a far better effect preserving the mitral valve area: SMD 0.54, 95% CI: 0.13-0.95, p=0.01, and less constrictive for blood flow across the mitral valve, with the pooled SMD of peak velocity (flexible vs rigid: -0.63, 95% CI: -1.12 to -0.13, p=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Except for the improvement in ejection fraction and preserving the mitral valve area effects in the flexible cases, it remains comparable with regard to overall survival, mortality, reoperation, regurgitant recurrence, and left ventricular performance between the flexible and rigid ring.
Authors: Francesco Nappi; Sanjeet Singh Avtaar Singh; Muralidhar Padala; David Attias; Mohammed Nejjari; Christos G Mihos; Umberto Benedetto; Robert Michler Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Manuel K Rausch; Wolfgang Bothe; John-Peder Escobar Kvitting; Julia C Swanson; D Craig Miller; Ellen Kuhl Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2011-10-25 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Mathieu Vergnat; Melissa M Levack; Arminder S Jassar; Benjamin M Jackson; Michael A Acker; Y Joseph Woo; Robert C Gorman; Joseph H Gorman Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2012-02-20 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Farideh Roshanali; Ali Vedadian; Saeed Shoar; Saleh Sandoughdaran; Mohammad Naderan; Mohammad Hossein Mandegar Journal: Int Cardiovasc Res J Date: 2012-12-15
Authors: Ahmet Yavuz Balcı; Ünsal Vural; Mehmet Kızılay; Cevdet Dönmez; Serdar Akansel; Fatih Özdemir; Rezan Aksoy; Günseli Abay Journal: Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 0.332