4.7 Article

Echo cardiographic prediction of left ventricular dysfunction after mitral valve repair for mitral regurgitation as an indicator to decide the optimal timing of repair

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(03)00649-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine whether echocardiography before mitral valve repair (MVR) for mitral regurgitation (MR) was predictive of postoperative left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and useful for deciding the optimal timing of repair. BACKGROUND Some reports have shown that the preoperative echocardiographic data of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVDs) were good predictors of postoperative LV dysfunction. However, few reports were based on long-term follow-up data of large numbers of patients who underwent MVR in the last decade. METHODS A total of 274 patients with moderate or severe MR underwent MVR between October 1, 1991, and September 30, 2000. Among them, 171 patients who had both an operation for isolated MR due to degenerative pathology and a postoperative echocardiogram were studied. Postoperative echocardiograms were performed 3.9 +/- 2.4 years after the operation. RESULTS The LVEF decreased from 66 +/- 10% before surgery to 63 +/- 11% after surgery (p < 0.0001). On univariate analysis, preoperative LVEF and LVDs correlated with postoperative LVEF (r = 0.41 and r = -0.39, respectively). Overall, postoperative LV dysfunction (defined as LVEF <50%) was not frequent (12%). However, the incidence of postoperative LV dysfunction was high in patients with preoperative LVEF <55% (38%) or LVDs greater than or equal to40 mm (23%). CONCLUSIONS In patients with MR, the echocardiographic data of LVEF and LVDs were good predictors of postoperative LV dysfunction. When a decrease in LVEF or an increase in LVDs is detected, MVR should be considered to preserve postoperative LV function. (C) 2003 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

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