Key result
Sub-valvular apparatus preservation during mitral valve replacement did not significantly affect the incidence of prosthetic valve dysfunction compared to conventional replacement (5.1% vs 4.5%, P=0.56).
Why the study?
Does sub-valvular apparatus preservation during mitral valve replacement reduce prosthetic valve dysfunction and mortality compared to conventional mitral valve replacement?
Population
151 consecutive patients who underwent mitral valve replacement from January 1996 to November 2006 at a…
Comparison
Mitral valve replacement with sub-valvular… vs Conventional mitral valve replacement with total…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
mean 60.3 ± 26 months
Authors
Loading...
Preservation does not increase prosthetic dysfunction risk; leaves open mortality or functional benefits in this Level 3 cohort.
Cohort (n=151)
No
Does sub-valvular apparatus preservation during mitral valve replacement reduce prosthetic valve dysfunction and mortality compared to conventional mitral valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.1% vs 4.5%
p-value: p=0.56
Preservation of the sub-valvular apparatus during mitral valve replacement is associated with lower mortality and improved functional status without increasing the risk of prosthetic valve dysfunction.
Mirmesdagh et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve disease requiring replacement (n=151). Sub-valvular apparatus preservation (SAP) during mitral valve replacement vs. Conventional mitral valve replacement with total excision of native valve and sub-valvular apparatus was evaluated on Prosthetic valve dysfunction (PVD) (p=0.56). Sub-valvular apparatus preservation during mitral valve replacement did not significantly affect the incidence of prosthetic valve dysfunction compared to conventional replacement (5.1% vs 4.5%, P=0.56).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: