Mitral valve replacement combined with coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with moderate-to-severe ischemic mitral regurgitation.

INTRODUCTION: Ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) is associated with increased mortality. Even after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), IMR reduces survival. Several studies have shown increased perioperative mortality for mitral valve replacement (MVR) in this situation, but the subject remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of MVR on immediate outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe IMR undergoing concomitant CABG compared with those undergoing CABG only. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 42 patients undergoing CABG+MVR (n=16) or CABG only (n=26) at the Division of Cardiovascular Surgery of PROCAPE, between May 2007 and April 2010. Preoperative clinical characteristics, procedural characteristics, major and minor complications after surgery, preoperative and postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography, and outcome (survivor or death) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 63.4 ± 8.5 years, and 64.8% (n=23) were male. The CABG+MVR group showed lower rates of postoperative low cardiac output (6.3% vs. 42.3%, p=0.014) and atrial fibrillation (6.3% vs. 38.5%, p=0.021). Both groups had higher mean LVEF in the postoperative compared with the preoperative period, but the average gain in LVEF in the CABG+MVR group was higher than in the CABG-only group (8.88 ± 2.39 vs. 4.31 ± 1.23, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in operative mortality (6.3% vs. 7.7%, p=0.679). CONCLUSIONS: CABG+MVR can be performed safely in patients with moderate-to-severe IMR. CABG+MVR resulted in lower rates of complications than CABG only. Both surgical approaches resulted in significant improvement of postoperative LVEF. However, there was greater improvement in the CABG+MVR group.

Prophylactic intra-aortic balloon pump in high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a prophylactic intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. We included only randomized controlled trials. Assessments for eligibility, relevance, and study validity and data extraction were performed in duplicate using prespecified criteria. Meta-analysis was carried out using fixed-effect and random-effect models. RESULTS: Seven publications fulfilled our eligibility criteria. There was no important statistical heterogeneity or publication bias among included studies. In total, 177 patients received prophylactic IABP and 168 did not. Overall relative risk (RR) for hospital mortality in patients treated with prophylactic IABP was 0.255 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.122-0.533; P<0.001; same results for both effect models]. Pooled RR for postoperative low cardiac output syndrome was 0.206 (95% CI, 0.109-0.389; P<0.001) for the fixed-effect model and 0.219 (95% CI, 0.095-0.504; P<0.001) for the random-effect model. Patients treated with prophylactic IABP presented an overall difference in means for length of intensive care unit stay and hospital stay, which was lower than that in the control group (P<0.001 for both effect models). Only 7.4% (13/177) of patients who received prophylactic IABP developed complications at an insertion site, with no IABP-related death. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis supports the use of prophylactic IABP in high-risk patients to reduce hospital mortality.