Key result
Beating-heart mitral valve replacement significantly reduced median operative time (130 vs 240 minutes) and cardiopulmonary bypass time compared to conventional surgery with cardioplegic arrest.
Why the study?
Cardiac reperfusion injury is a well-described complication following ischemia or cardioplegic arrest, prompting comparison of beating heart mitral valve replacement without cross-clamping against conventional mitral valve replacement.
Does beating-heart mitral valve replacement without cross-clamping improve safety and operative outcomes compared to conventional mitral valve replacement with cardioplegic arrest in patients with pure mitral regurgitation?
Observational (n=50)
Randomly selected
No
Does beating-heart mitral valve replacement without cross-clamping improve safety and operative outcomes compared to conventional mitral valve replacement with cardioplegic arrest in patients with pure mitral regurgitation?
Absolute Event Rate: 130% vs 240%
p-value: p=<0.001
Beating-heart mitral valve replacement without aortic cross-clamping appears safe and significantly reduces operative time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and the need for inotropic support compared to conventional cardioplegic arrest.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmad et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Pure Mitral regurgitation (n=50). Beating-heart mitral valve replacement without aortic cross-clamping vs. Conventional mitral valve replacement with cardioplegic arrest was evaluated on Operative time (minutes) (p=<0.001). Beating-heart mitral valve replacement significantly reduced median operative time (130 vs 240 minutes) and cardiopulmonary bypass time compared to conventional surgery with cardioplegic arrest.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: