Mabvuure Nigel, Cumberworth Alex, Hindocha Sandip
Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012 Sep;15(3):467-71. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivs212. Epub 2012 Jun 12.
A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'In patients with carcinoid syndrome undergoing valve replacement, will a biological valve have acceptable durability?' Altogether, more than 130 papers were found using the reported search, of which 17 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The pooled data from all papers represent 51 patients with carcinoid right heart disease who underwent tricuspid valve replacement. Two 'outcomes' studies reported a 30-day postoperative mortality of 16.7-18% and 2-year survival rates of 44 and 50%, respectively. Seventeen patients were detailed in case reports. Of these 17 patients, 7 died during the follow-up period. All but one of these patients had a normal bioprosthesis at echocardiography or at post-mortem. One patient with a plaque-covered valve had a functionally normal valve. We conclude that at present, the best available evidence suggests that although 30-day mortality approaches 20%, approximately half of patients with carcinoid syndrome undergoing tricuspid valve replacement can be expected to survive 2 years. Some patients survive considerably longer than this, beyond 10 years in some cases. Importantly, at autopsy, many replacement valves have been shown to be normal, with a few patients reported as having died of cardiac causes. This should be taken as cautious evidence that biological valves have an acceptable lifespan in patients with carcinoid syndrome and that the process of valve destruction seen in carcinoid patients does not continue to a significant level in the bioprosthesis. Caveats to this include the lack of any directly comparative trial and the predominance of case reports as opposed to higher-level evidence.
一篇心脏外科领域的最佳证据主题文章是按照结构化方案撰写的。所探讨的问题是“在患有类癌综合征且接受瓣膜置换的患者中,生物瓣膜是否具有可接受的耐用性?”通过报告的检索方式共找到130多篇论文,其中17篇代表了回答该临床问题的最佳证据。这些论文的作者、期刊、出版日期、国家、所研究的患者群体、研究类型、相关结局和结果都被制成了表格。所有论文的汇总数据代表了51例患有类癌性右心疾病并接受三尖瓣置换的患者。两项“结局”研究报告称,术后30天死亡率分别为16.7% - 18%,2年生存率分别为44%和50%。病例报告详细描述了17例患者。在这17例患者中,7例在随访期间死亡。除1例患者外,其余所有患者在超声心动图检查或尸检时生物瓣膜均正常。1例瓣膜有斑块覆盖的患者瓣膜功能正常。我们得出结论,目前,现有最佳证据表明,尽管30天死亡率接近20%,但预计约一半接受三尖瓣置换的类癌综合征患者能够存活2年。一些患者存活时间远超于此,有些情况下超过10年。重要的是,尸检显示许多置换瓣膜是正常的,少数患者被报告死于心脏原因。这应被视为谨慎的证据,表明生物瓣膜在类癌综合征患者中具有可接受的使用寿命,并且在类癌患者中所见的瓣膜破坏过程在生物假体中不会持续到显著程度。对此的注意事项包括缺乏任何直接的对比试验以及病例报告占主导地位而非更高水平的证据。