PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 1, 1989The Annals of Thoracic Surgery171 citationsOpen Access

A comparison of mitral valve reconstruction with mitral valve replacement: Intermediate-term results

View Full Paper
AGAubrey C. GallowaySCStephen B. ColvinFBF.Gregory Baumann

Key Result

Mitral valve reconstruction demonstrated a 5-year survival of 76%, equivalent to mechanical (72%) and porcine (69%) replacement, with significantly less valve-related combined morbidity.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=1,424)

Multicenter

No

Structured PICO

Does mitral valve reconstruction improve survival and reduce valve-related morbidity compared to mitral valve replacement in patients requiring mitral valve surgery?

P
Population
1,424 patients undergoing mitral valve reconstruction or replacement at a single institution between 1976 and mid-1988, evaluated for intermediate-term outcomes up to 5 years.
E
Exposure
Carpentier-type mitral valve reconstruction (CVR)
C
Comparator
Mitral valve replacement (MVR) using either porcine or mechanical valves
O
Outcome
Operative mortality and overall 5-year survivalhard clinical

Mitral valve reconstruction offers equivalent survival and lower valve-related morbidity compared to mitral valve replacement, supporting its use in suitable patients with mitral insufficiency.

Abstract

The continued good results after mitral valve reconstruction prompted this retrospective study to compare operative and late results from our institutional experience since 1976 with 975 porcine mitral valve replacements (MVRs) (1976 to December 1987), 169 mechanical MVRs (1976 to December 1987), and 280 Carpentier-type mitral valve reconstructions (CVRs) (1980 to mid-1988). The operative mortality was 2.0% for isolated CVR, 6.6% for isolated mechanical MVR, and 8.5% for isolated porcine MVR. The overall operative mortality was 5.0% for CVR, 16.6% for mechanical MVR, and 10.6% for porcine MVR. The overall 5-year survival including hospital deaths was 76% for CVR, 72% for mechanical MVR, and 69% for porcine MVR. By multivariate analysis, the predictors of increased operative risk and of decreased survival were age, New York Heart Association functional class IV status, previous cardiac operation, and performance of concomitant cardiac surgical procedures. The type of valvular procedure was not predictive of operative risk or overall survival. The 5-year freedom from reoperation was 94.4% for nonrheumatic patients having CVR, 77.4% for rheumatic patients having CVR, 96.4% for mechanical MVR, and 96.6% for porcine MVR (p less than 0.05, rheumatic patients with CVR versus both MVR groups). The 5-year freedom from all valve-related morbidity and mortality was significantly better for valve reconstruction compared with both types of valve replacement. Thus, the operative risk and late survival obtained after mitral valve reconstruction were at least equivalent to those obtained after MVR. In addition, patients receiving mitral valve reconstruction had less valve-related combined morbidity than patients receiving valve replacement, thus making mitral valve reconstruction preferable in some patients with mitral insufficiency.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Galloway et al. (1989) conducted a cohort in Mitral insufficiency (n=1,424). Mitral valve reconstruction vs. Mitral valve replacement (porcine or mechanical) was evaluated on Overall 5-year survival including hospital deaths. Mitral valve reconstruction demonstrated a 5-year survival of 76%, equivalent to mechanical (72%) and porcine (69%) replacement, with significantly less valve-related combined morbidity.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aa47439481326eee3b72cdehttps://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(89)90113-6
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper