4.7 Article

Changes in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction after Mitral Valve Repair for Primary Mitral Regurgitation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10132830

关键词

left ventricular end-systolic diameter; left ventricular ejection fraction; mitral valve repair; chronic primary mitral regurgitation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the short- and long-term changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after mitral valve repair in patients with chronic primary mitral regurgitation. The results showed that preoperative LVEF and left ventricular end-systolic diameter values can influence the patterns of short- and long-term changes in postoperative LVEF.
This study sought to identify the short- and long-term changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after mitral valve repair (MVr) in patients with chronic primary mitral regurgitation according to preoperative LVEF (pre-LVEF) and preoperative left ventricular end-systolic diameter (pre-LVESD). This study evaluated 461 patients. Restricted cubic spline regression models were constructed to demonstrate the long-term changes in postoperative LVEF (post-LVEF). The patients were divided into four groups according to pre-LVEF (<50%, 50-60%, 60-70%, and >= 70%). The higher the pre-LVEF was, the greater was the decrease in LVEF immediately after MVr. In the same pre-LVEF range, immediate post-LVEF was lower in patients with pre-LVESD >= 40 mm than in those with pre-LVESD < 40 mm. The patterns of long-term changes in post-LVEF differed according to pre-LVEF (p for interaction < 0.001). The long-term post-LVEF reached a plateau of approximately 60% when the pre-LVEF was >= 50%, but it seemed to show a downward trend after reaching a peak at approximately 3-4 years after MVr when the pre-LVEF was >= 70%. The patterns of short- and long-term changes in post-LVEF differed according to pre-LVEF and pre-LVESD values in patients with chronic primary mitral regurgitation after MVr.

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

4.7
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