4.6 Article

Mild-to-moderate functional tricuspid regurgitation in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
卷 146, 期 5, 页码 1092-1097

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.07.100

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The decision to repair mild-to-moderate functional tricuspid regurgitation (TR) during mitral valve surgery remains controversial. We evaluated the effects of tricuspid valve (TV) repair for functional mild-to-moderate TR during mitral valve surgery. Methods: We enrolled 959 patients with mild-to-moderate functional TR who underwent mitral valve surgery with (repair group n = 431) or without (control group n = 528) concomitant TV repair from January 1994 to September 2010. Results: There were no significant differences in early mortality or major morbidity rates. Median follow-up was 64.8 months (range, 0.03-203.6 months). After adjustment for baseline characteristics using a propensity score adjustment model, the repair group had similar risks for TV reoperation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-2.07; P = .31); congestive heart failure (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.37-3.36; P = .84); death (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.82-2.42; P = .22); and the composite of death, TV reoperation, and congestive heart failure (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.76-2.03; P = .39) compared with the control group. On multivariate Cox-regression analysis, old age, atrial fibrillation without a Maze procedure, diabetes mellitus, chronic renal failure, poor left ventricular ejection fraction, and redo surgery emerged as significant independent risk factors for the composite outcome of death, TV reoperation, and congestive heart failure. Conclusions: Early or late clinical benefits of concomitant TV repair for mild-to-moderate TR during mitral valve surgery were uncertain through a long-term follow-up of 959 patients. Several preoperative factors and the performance of Maze procedure for AF seem to be more important than TV repair in overall clinical outcomes.

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