Cargando…

Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The clinical outcome of mitral valve repair (MVP) is considerably more favorable than that of mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients with degenerative mitral disease. However, rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is still the predominant cause of mitral valve surgery in developing countries...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiang, Yefan, Wang, Chen, Li, Geng, Chen, Si
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7940942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33708831
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-3542
_version_ 1783662051958194176
author Jiang, Yefan
Wang, Chen
Li, Geng
Chen, Si
author_facet Jiang, Yefan
Wang, Chen
Li, Geng
Chen, Si
author_sort Jiang, Yefan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The clinical outcome of mitral valve repair (MVP) is considerably more favorable than that of mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients with degenerative mitral disease. However, rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is still the predominant cause of mitral valve surgery in developing countries and the advantages of MVP in RHD have still not been definitely proven. The aim of this meta-analysis was thus to evaluate the suitability of MVP in patients with RHD. Considering the difference between mechanical and biological valves, we distinguished them from each other and compared them with MVP individually. METHODS: A comparison of clinical outcomes of MVP and MVR in patients with RHD was performed based on clinical trial data. Relevant articles published from January 1, 1990 until March 1, 2020 were identified in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI). Studies that lacked direct comparisons between MVP and MVR were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies with 8659 patients were included in the analysis. The MVP group displayed lower early and long-term mortality, and fewer valve-related events and major adverse events. However, this patient group required more reoperations compared with the MVR group. Similar results were observed after distinguishing between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves to compare MVP with MVR (mech-valves), but no statistically significant difference was identified in the reoperation rate between MVP and MVR (bio-valves). MVP was further associated with increased risk of mitral reoperation in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery but without any improved early and long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: MVP and MVR are beneficial for patients with RHD. For skilled surgeons, MVP can be performed for some suitable patients with RHD and is preferred for elderly patients or patients with contraindications of anticoagulation. However, MVR is more appropriate when concomitant AVR is needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7940942
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79409422021-03-10 Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease: a meta-analysis Jiang, Yefan Wang, Chen Li, Geng Chen, Si Ann Transl Med Original Article BACKGROUND: The clinical outcome of mitral valve repair (MVP) is considerably more favorable than that of mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients with degenerative mitral disease. However, rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is still the predominant cause of mitral valve surgery in developing countries and the advantages of MVP in RHD have still not been definitely proven. The aim of this meta-analysis was thus to evaluate the suitability of MVP in patients with RHD. Considering the difference between mechanical and biological valves, we distinguished them from each other and compared them with MVP individually. METHODS: A comparison of clinical outcomes of MVP and MVR in patients with RHD was performed based on clinical trial data. Relevant articles published from January 1, 1990 until March 1, 2020 were identified in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI). Studies that lacked direct comparisons between MVP and MVR were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies with 8659 patients were included in the analysis. The MVP group displayed lower early and long-term mortality, and fewer valve-related events and major adverse events. However, this patient group required more reoperations compared with the MVR group. Similar results were observed after distinguishing between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves to compare MVP with MVR (mech-valves), but no statistically significant difference was identified in the reoperation rate between MVP and MVR (bio-valves). MVP was further associated with increased risk of mitral reoperation in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery but without any improved early and long-term survival. CONCLUSIONS: MVP and MVR are beneficial for patients with RHD. For skilled surgeons, MVP can be performed for some suitable patients with RHD and is preferred for elderly patients or patients with contraindications of anticoagulation. However, MVR is more appropriate when concomitant AVR is needed. AME Publishing Company 2021-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7940942/ /pubmed/33708831 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-3542 Text en 2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Jiang, Yefan
Wang, Chen
Li, Geng
Chen, Si
Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease: a meta-analysis
title Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease: a meta-analysis
title_full Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease: a meta-analysis
title_fullStr Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease: a meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease: a meta-analysis
title_short Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease: a meta-analysis
title_sort clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve repair or replacement in patients with rheumatic heart disease: a meta-analysis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7940942/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33708831
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-3542
work_keys_str_mv AT jiangyefan clinicaloutcomesfollowingsurgicalmitralvalverepairorreplacementinpatientswithrheumaticheartdiseaseametaanalysis
AT wangchen clinicaloutcomesfollowingsurgicalmitralvalverepairorreplacementinpatientswithrheumaticheartdiseaseametaanalysis
AT ligeng clinicaloutcomesfollowingsurgicalmitralvalverepairorreplacementinpatientswithrheumaticheartdiseaseametaanalysis
AT chensi clinicaloutcomesfollowingsurgicalmitralvalverepairorreplacementinpatientswithrheumaticheartdiseaseametaanalysis