BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine if there is a statistically significant difference (p < or = 0.05) between mitral valve repair (MVRp) with concomitant surgical revascularization of the myocardium (CABG) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) with concomitant CABG, considering the duration of surgery, early postoperative morbidity, in-hospital mortality, length of stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and overall in-hospital stay. METHODS: Between January 1st 2006 and December 31st 2008, 75 patients underwent surgery for mitral regurgitation and ischemic heart disease. Patients were divided in two groups determined by the procedure that was performed on the mitral valve (MVRp + CABG group had 34 patients, MVR + CABG group had 41 patients). All the patients were operated by the same surgical team and received the usual anaesthesia protocol. RESULTS: Patients in the MVR + CABG group had statistically significant higher EuroSCORE risk levels, higher NYHA status and higher incidence of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS). Neurological complications showed statistically significant higher incidence in the MVRp + CABG group. There was no statistically significant difference in regard to in-hospital mortality between these two groups. Patients in the MVR + CABG group had statistically significant longer in-hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Mitral valve repair and mitral valve replacement are complementary methods considering early postoperative morbidity and mortality. Higher incidence of LCOS and in-hospital stay in the MVR + CABG group was to be expected on behalf of poorer preoperative status.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine if there is a statistically significant difference (p < or = 0.05) between mitral valve repair (MVRp) with concomitant surgical revascularization of the myocardium (CABG) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) with concomitant CABG, considering the duration of surgery, early postoperative morbidity, in-hospital mortality, length of stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and overall in-hospital stay. METHODS: Between January 1st 2006 and December 31st 2008, 75 patients underwent surgery for mitral regurgitation and ischemic heart disease. Patients were divided in two groups determined by the procedure that was performed on the mitral valve (MVRp + CABG group had 34 patients, MVR + CABG group had 41 patients). All the patients were operated by the same surgical team and received the usual anaesthesia protocol. RESULTS:Patients in the MVR + CABG group had statistically significant higher EuroSCORE risk levels, higher NYHA status and higher incidence of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS). Neurological complications showed statistically significant higher incidence in the MVRp + CABG group. There was no statistically significant difference in regard to in-hospital mortality between these two groups. Patients in the MVR + CABG group had statistically significant longer in-hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS:Mitral valve repair and mitral valve replacement are complementary methods considering early postoperative morbidity and mortality. Higher incidence of LCOS and in-hospital stay in the MVR + CABG group was to be expected on behalf of poorer preoperative status.
Authors: Sohaib A Virk; Arunan Sriravindrarajah; Douglas Dunn; Kevin Liou; Hugh Wolfenden; Genevieve Tan; Christopher Cao Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2015-09