Key result
Mitral valve reconstruction for infective endocarditis was associated with similar 30-day mortality (1.7% vs 4.0%; p=0.67) and long-term survival compared to valve replacement.
Why the study?
Does mitral valve reconstruction improve survival and clinical outcomes compared to mitral valve replacement in patients with infective native mitral valve endocarditis?
Population
154 patients with infective native mitral valve endocarditis treated surgically between 1980 and 1996
Comparison
Mitral valve reconstruction (n=57) vs Mitral valve replacement (n=97)
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
up to 10 years
Authors
Loading...
Similar survival with reconstruction versus replacement in observational data; leaves open confirmation of benefit in randomized trials.
Cohort (n=154)
Yes
Does mitral valve reconstruction improve survival and clinical outcomes compared to mitral valve replacement in patients with infective native mitral valve endocarditis?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.7% vs 4%
p-value: p=0.67
Mitral valve reconstruction for infective endocarditis yields similar long-term survival but better functional outcomes and fewer complications compared to valve replacement.
Wilhelm et al. (2004) conducted a cohort in infective native mitral valve endocarditis (n=154). Mitral valve reconstruction vs. Mitral valve replacement was evaluated on 30-day mortality (p=0.67). Mitral valve reconstruction for infective endocarditis was associated with similar 30-day mortality (1.7% vs 4.0%; p=0.67) and long-term survival compared to valve replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: