Literature DB >> 26888462

Meta-analysis of concomitant mitral valve repair and coronary artery bypass surgery versus isolated coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with moderate ischaemic mitral regurgitation.

Tomislav Kopjar1, Hrvoje Gasparovic2, Carlos A Mestres3, Davor Milicic4, Bojan Biocina2.   

Abstract

Ischaemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) is a complication of coronary artery disease with normal chordal and leaflet morphology. Controversy surrounds the issue of appropriate surgical management of moderate IMR. With the present meta-analysis, we aimed to determine whether the addition of mitral valve (MV) repair to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improved clinical outcome over CABG alone in patients with moderate IMR. Databases were searched for studies reporting on clinical outcomes after CABG and MV repair or CABG alone for moderate IMR. Clinical end-points were operative mortality, survival, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class ≥2 and MR grade ≥2 at last follow-up. A total of five observational and four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. The mean follow-up was 2.7 years. An analysis of all studies revealed increased operative risk in the concomitant CABG and MV repair group {risk ratio [RR] 2.02 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15, 3.56], P = 0.01, I(2) = 0%}. However, an analysis of RCTs only showed that the operative risk was equivalent [RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.34, 3.30), P = 0.93, I(2) = 0%]. Pooled hazard ratio (HR) on survival did not favour either procedure [all studies: HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.77, 1.50), P = 0.66, I(2) = 0%; RCTs only: HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.47, 1.70), P = 0.73, I(2) = 0%]. The incidence of exercise intolerance quantified as NYHA class ≥2 was similar between groups (all studies: RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.42, 1.24), P = 0.24, I(2) = 77%; RCTs only: RR 0.61 (95% CI 0.24, 1.55), P = 0.30, I(2) = 83%]. Risk of residual MR grade ≥2 was higher in the CABG only group [all studies: RR 0.30 (95% CI 0.16, 0.60), P < 0.001, I(2) = 83%; RCTs only: RR 0.20 (95% CI 0.04, 0.90), P = 0.04, I(2) = 72%]. There is neither increased operative mortality nor survival benefit associated with concomitant CABG and MV repair for IMR of moderate degree over CABG alone. Further studies with long-term follow-up data and sub-group analyses of current data are needed to define a subset of patients whose survival and functional status may improve with the concomitant MV repair.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coronary bypass; Ischaemic mitral regurgitation; Meta-analysis; Mitral valve repair; Outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26888462     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezw022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  2 in total

1.  Ischaemic mitral regurgitation.

Authors:  Om Prakash Yadava; Song Wan
Journal:  Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2019-12-02

2.  Mitral valve repair versus replacement in patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation.

Authors:  Meng-Lin Lee; Thay-Hsiung Chen; Hsien-Da Huang; Shaw-Min Hou
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.895

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.