Back to Search Start Over

Complete versus partial preservation of mitral valve apparatus during mitral valve replacement: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 1535 patients.

Authors :
Sá MP
Escobar RR
Ferraz PE
Vasconcelos FP
Lima RC
Source :
European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery [Eur J Cardiothorac Surg] 2013 Nov; Vol. 44 (5), pp. 905-12. Date of Electronic Publication: 2013 Feb 21.
Publication Year :
2013

Abstract

Objectives: To determine if there is any real difference between complete preservation (CP) and partial preservation (PP) of the mitral valve apparatus during mitral valve replacement (MVR) in terms of hard outcomes.<br />Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for clinical studies that compared outcomes [30-day mortality, postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), 5-year mortality or left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) before and after surgery] between MVR-CP vs MVR-PP during MVR until July 2012. The principal summary measures were odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI)--for categorical variables (30-day mortality, postoperative LCOS, 5-year mortality); difference means and standard error (SE)--for continuous variables (LVEF before and after surgery) and P values (that will be considered statistically significant when <0.05). The ORs were combined across studies using DerSimonian-Laird random effects weighted model. The same procedure was executed for continuous variables, taking into consideration the difference in means.<br />Results: Eight studies (2 randomized and 6 non-randomized) were identified and included a total of 1535 patients (597 for MVR-CP and 938 for MVR-PP). There was no significant difference between MVR-CP or MVR-PP groups in the risk for 30-day mortality (OR 0.870; 95% CI 0.50-1.52; P = 0.63) or postoperative LCOS (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.11-1.08 and P = 0.07) or 5-year mortality (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.43-1.14; P = 0.15). Taking into consideration LVEF, neither MVR-CP nor MVR-CP demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in LVEF before and after surgery, and both strategies were not different from each other. No publication bias was observed.<br />Conclusions: We found evidence that argues against any superiority between both techniques of preservation (complete or partial) of mitral valve apparatus during MVR.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1873-734X
Volume :
44
Issue :
5
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
23428575
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezt059