English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Ischaemic mitral regurgitation (MR) is associated with poor survival. The favoured surgical option remains debatable. Our aim was to perform a meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of mitral valve repair (MVRp) with replacement (MVR). A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Medline and Ovid using the terms 'ischaemic mitral regurgitation', 'repair' and 'replacement'. The primary outcome measure was 30-day survival. The secondary outcome measures were MR recurrence and reoperation. Out of 310 articles, 18 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 3978 patients were included: 2563 (64%) MVRp cases and 1415 (36%) MVR cases. Operative techniques included annuloplasty for MVRp and subvalvular apparatus-sparing MVR techniques. Thirty-day mortality was lower after MVRp compared with MVR [OR 0.42; (95% CI 0.33-0.54; P = 0.0001)]. There was no difference in long-term survival ranging 1-5 years (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65-1.12). Recurrence of MR was significantly higher in the MVRp group (OR 4.26, 95% CI 2.52-7.22), as was the rate of reoperation (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.49-2.77). Although MVR for ischaemic MR has a higher 30-day mortality rate compared with MVRp, MVRp is associated with the higher rate of MR recurrence and the need for reoperation. MVR remains an attractive option for ischaemic MR.

Is valve repair preferable to valve replacement in ischaemic mitral regurgitation? A systematic review and meta-analysis