PubMed Posts

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

No abstract available

Background: The development of ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) portends a poor prognosis and is associated with adverse long-term outcomes. Although both mitral valve repair (MVr) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) have been performed in the surgical management of IMR, there remains uncertainty regarding the optimal approach. The aim of the present study was to meta-analyze these two procedures, with mortality as the primary endpoint.

Methods: Seven databases were systematically searched for studies reporting peri-operative or late mortality following MVr and MVR for IMR. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and meta-analyzed according to pre-defined study selection criteria and clinical endpoints.

Results: Overall, 22 observational studies (n=3,815 patients) and one randomized controlled trial (n=251) were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated significantly reduced peri-operative mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.61; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.47-0.77; I(2)=0%; P<0.001] and late mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.92; I(2)=0%; P=0.002) following MVr. This finding was more pronounced in studies with longer follow-up beyond 3 years. At latest follow-up, recurrence of at least moderate mitral regurgitation (MR) was higher following MVr (RR, 5.21; 95% CI, 2.66-10.22; I(2)=46%; P<0.001) but the incidence of mitral valve re-operations were similar.

Conclusions: In the present meta-analysis, MVr was associated with reduced peri-operative and late mortality compared to MVR, despite an increased recurrence of at least moderate MR at follow-up. However, these findings must be considered within the context of the differing patient characteristics that may affect allocation to MVr or MVR. Larger prospective studies are warranted to further compare long-term survival and freedom from re-intervention.

No abstract available

No abstract available

Objective: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a feasible alternative treatment to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. The present systematic review aimed to assess the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes of TAVI versus AVR, and meta-analyse standardized clinical endpoints.

Methods: An electronic search was conducted on 9 online databases to identify all relevant studies. Eligible studies had to report on either periprocedural mortality or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to be included for analysis.

Results: The systematic review identified 24 studies that reported on comparative clinical outcomes, including three randomized controlled trials and ten matched observational studies involving 7906 patients. Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences in regards to mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or acute renal failure. Patients who underwent TAVI were more likely to experience major vascular complications or arrhythmias requiring permanent pacemaker insertion. Patients who underwent AVR were more likely to experience major bleeding. Eleven analyses from 7 economic studies reported on ICER. Six analyses defined TAVI to be low value, 2 analyses defined TAVI to be intermediate value, and three analyses defined TAVI to be high value.

Conclusion: The present study demonstrated no significant differences in regards to mortality or stroke between the two therapeutic procedures. However, the cost-effectiveness and long-term efficacy of TAVI may require further investigation. Technological improvement and increased experience may broaden the clinical indication for TAVI for low-intermediate risk patients in the future.

No abstract available

No abstract available