Comparison of Outcomes following Mitral Valve Repair versus Replacement for Chronic Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation: A Meta-Analysis.

Background The selection of mitral valve surgery, including mitral valve repair and mitral valve replacement, is still an important dilemma for patients with chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation. We carry out a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of mitral valve repair versus replacement for ischemic mitral regurgitation. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies from their inception to July 2015. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). A random-effect model was used and sensitivity analysis was performed on studies reporting on operation after 2000, high-quality studies, and those studies reporting on more than 150 patients. Result A total of 2,324 patients were identified from 10 retrospective studies. Mitral valve repair was associated with a trend toward lower operative mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.65; p < 0.0001) and higher recurrence of mitral regurgitation (OR = 5.89; 95% CI: 3.34-10.39; p < 0.00001). Five-year survival rate was similar between the two groups (OR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.88-1.65; p = 0.25). No differences in reoperation, the incidence of acute renal failure and acute respiratory failure, the length of ICU stay, and the length of hospital stay were found. Conclusion Mitral valve repair was associated with lower operative mortality but a higher recurrence of mitral regurgitation compared with mitral valve replacement. Owing to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, this conclusion still needs to be further confirmed by conducting more high-quality, multicenter randomized controlled trials with large sample size.

Ultrasonographic applications after mass casualty incident caused by Wenchuan earthquake.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography has been widely applied in clinical settings, and its role in the assessment of trauma has been approved. However, there are very few reports about its role in the management of mass casualties. METHODS: In our hospital, we retrospectively analyzed the application, the methods, and the role of ultrasonography in rescuing the Wenchuan earthquake victims. RESULTS: On a total of 3,307 wounded patients, 1,207 were examined by ultrasonography, and on a part of them, a follow-up was also performed. A total number of 1,386 ultrasound examinations were performed. Among them, 115 patients received ultrasound-guided interventional diagnosis and treatments. Ultrasound screening detected 23 cases of hemoperitoneum, 45 cases of pleural effusion (blood), 1 case of traumatic intimal tear of femoral artery, 3 cases of deep veins phlebothrombosis of lower limbs, 12 cases of deep-part hematoma of soft tissues. In five cases of negative results by ultrasonography, visceral injury was confirmed later by surgery or computed tomography or contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. All the ultrasound-guided interventional treatments were performed successfully, without any serious complication. The detection rate of trauma-related diseases was 6.96% (84 of 1,207) without false positive; however, the false negative rate was 5.6% (5 of 89). The bedside ultrasound became the preferred examination for the majority of injuries in middle and later stage after earthquake (72 hours to 6 weeks), accounting for 73.9% (458 of 620) of examinations. Ultrasonography-based FAST method was the primary examination tool of trauma in the early stage after earthquake. CONCLUSION: In our hospital, ultrasonography was widely used in the triage of earthquake victims, bedside examination of severe cases, and interventional treatments. The advantages of ultrasonography such as convenience, noninvasiveness, high accuracy, and repeatability have been sufficiently demonstrated in this mass casualty, where ultrasonography played a great role in the rescue of victims of Wenchuan earthquake.