Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Front Cardiovasc Med ; 10: 1202174, 2023.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37840960

RESUMEN

Objectives: It is uncertain whether concurrent mitral valve repair or replacement for moderate or greater secondary mitral regurgitation at the time of coronary artery bypass graft or aortic valve replacement surgery improves long-term survival. Methods: Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft and/or aortic valve replacement surgery with moderate or greater secondary mitral regurgitation were reviewed. The effect of concurrent mitral valve repair or replacement upon long-term mortality was assessed while accounting for patient and operative characteristics and mitral regurgitation severity. Results: Of 1,515 patients, 938 underwent coronary artery bypass graft or aortic valve replacement surgery alone and 577 underwent concurrent mitral valve repair or replacement. Concurrent mitral valve repair or replacement did not alter the risk of postoperative mortality for patients with moderate mitral regurgitation (hazard ratio = 0.93; 0.75-1.17) or more-than-moderate mitral regurgitation (hazard ratio = 1.09; 0.74-1.60) in multivariable regression. Patients with more-than-moderate mitral regurgitation undergoing coronary artery bypass graft-only surgery had a survival advantage from concurrent mitral valve repair or replacement in the first two postoperative years (P = 0.028) that did not persist beyond that time. Patients who underwent concurrent mitral valve repair or replacement had a higher rate of later mitral valve operation or reoperation over the five subsequent years (1.9% vs. 0.2%; P = 0.0014) than those who did not. Conclusions: These observations suggest that mitral valve repair or replacement for more-than-moderate mitral regurgitation at the time of coronary artery bypass grafting may be reasonable in a suitably selected coronary artery bypass graft population but not for aortic valve replacement, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting. Our findings are supportive of 2021 European guidelines that severe secondary mitral regurgitation "should" or be "reasonabl[y]" intervened upon at the time of coronary artery bypass grafting but do not support 2020 American guidelines for performing mitral valve repair or replacement concurrent with aortic valve replacement, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting.

2.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg ; 32(1): 9-19, 2021 01 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33313764

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Functional mitral regurgitation (MR) is observed with ischaemic heart disease or aortic valve disease. Assessing the value of mitral valve repair or replacement (MVR/P) is complicated by frequent discordance between preoperative transthoracic echocardiographic (pTTE) and intraoperative transoesophageal echocardiographic (iTOE) assessment of MR severity. We examined the association of pTTE and iTOE with postoperative mortality in patients with or without MR, at the time of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and/or aortic valve replacement without MVR/P. METHODS: Medical records of 6629 patients undergoing CABG and/or aortic valve replacement surgery with or without functional MR and who did not undergo MVR/P were reviewed. MR severity assessed by pTTE and iTOE were examined for association with postoperative mortality using proportional hazards regression while accounting for patient and operative characteristics. RESULTS: In 72% of 709 patients with clinically significant (moderate or greater) functional MR detected by pTTE, iTOE performed after induction of anaesthesia demonstrated a reduction in MR severity, while 2% of patients had increased severity of MR by iTOE. iTOE assessment of MR was better associated with long-term postoperative mortality than pTTE in patients with moderate MR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.31 (1.11-1.55) vs 1.02 (0.89-1.17), P-value for comparison of HR 0.025] but was not different for more than moderate MR [1.43 (0.96-2.14) vs 1.27 (0.80-2.02)]. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing CABG and/or aortic valve replacement without MVR/P, these findings support intraoperative reassessment of MR severity by iTOE as an adjunct to pTTE in the prediction of mortality. Alone, these findings do not yet provide evidence for an operative strategy.


Asunto(s)
Puente de Arteria Coronaria , Ecocardiografía Transesofágica , Ecocardiografía , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Mitral/diagnóstico por imagen , Anciano , Prótesis Valvulares Cardíacas , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Mitral/cirugía , Isquemia Miocárdica/cirugía , Modelos de Riesgos Proporcionales , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento
3.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg ; 53(3): 560-568, 2018 03 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29149323

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) is the most common congenital valvular abnormality and frequently presents with accelerated calcific aortic valve disease, requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR) and thoracic aortic aneurysm and dissection. Supporting evidence for Association Guidelines of aortic dimensions for aortic resection is sparse. We sought to determine whether concurrent repair of dilated or aneurysmal aortic disease during AVR in patients with BAV substantially improves morbidity and mortality outcomes. METHODS: Mortality and reoperation outcomes of 1301 adults with BAV and dilated aorta undergoing AVR-only surgery were compared to patients undergoing AVR with aortic resection (AVR-AR) using Cox proportional hazards modelling and patient matching. RESULTS: Clinically important differences in patient characteristics, aortic valve function and aortic dimensions were identified between cohorts. Event rates were low, with rates of reoperation and death within 1 year of only 1.8% and 5.4%, respectively, and no aortic dissection observed during follow-up. There were no significant differences in reoperation or mortality outcomes between the AVR-only and AVR-AR cohorts. Age, aortic dimension or a combination thereof was not associated with better or worse outcomes after each AVR-AR compared with AVR. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude AVR-only and AVR-AR surgery have low morbidity and mortality and have utility over a wide range of age and aortic sizes. Our results do not provide support for the 45-mm aortic dimension recommended in the current guidelines for aortic resection while performing AVR or any other specific dimension.


Asunto(s)
Válvula Aórtica/anomalías , Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Enfermedades de las Válvulas Cardíacas/cirugía , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Aneurisma de la Aorta/cirugía , Enfermedad de la Válvula Aórtica Bicúspide , Femenino , Prótesis Valvulares Cardíacas , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/efectos adversos , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/mortalidad , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Reoperación/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA