4.6 Article

Twenty year follow-up after successful percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty in a large contemporary series of patients with mitral stenosis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 177, 期 3, 页码 881-885

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.10.040

关键词

Mitral stenosis; Percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty; Valvular heart disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Percutaneous balloon mitral valvuloplasty (PMV) is currently considered the standard of care for suitable patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis. We sought to assess very long-term outcome after PMV. Methods: Between 1991 and 2010, 482 consecutive patients underwent successful PMV in a single center. Procedural success was defined as post-procedural valve area >= 1.5 cm(2) and regurgitation moderate or less, without in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebro-vascular events. The primary endpoint was 20-year incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiovascular death and need for mitral surgery or repeat PMV. Results: Long-term follow-up (mean 11.6 +/- 4.9 years; range 0.5 to 20) was completed in 441 (91.5%) patients. The incidence of the primary endpoint was 41.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 37.3 to 46.7%). The rate of cardiovascular death, need for mitral surgery or repeat PMV was 9.1% (95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1), 27% (95% CI: 22.9 to 31.4), and 5.9% (95% CI: 3.9 to 8.5), respectively. Cumulative MACE-free survival at 20 years was 35.9 +/- 4.7%. At multivariate analysis, male gender (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.4-2.8, p < 0.001), echocardiographic score > 8 (HR: 2.19; 95% CI: 1.6-2.9, p < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.2-2.1, p = 0.003) and valve area <= 1.75 cm(2) after PMV (HR: 3.1; 95% CI: 2.3-4.2, p < 0.001) were identified as independent predictors of the primary endpoint. Conclusions: Up to 20 years after successful PMV, a sizeable proportion of patients still exhibit a good clinical result. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据