Afanasyev Alexander, Bogachev-Prokophiev Alexander, Lenko Eugeniy, Sharifulin Ravil, Ovcharov Michael, Kozmin Dmitriy, Karaskov Alexander
New surgical technology, National Medical Research Center, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation.
Cardiac surgery department, Federal Center for Cardiovascular Surgery, Astrakhan, Russian Federation.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019 Mar 1;28(3):465-472. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivy269.
We evaluated the differences in mitral valve (MV) plasty (MVP) and MV replacement (MVR) with respect to death, postoperative MV dysfunction, reoperation rates and thromboembolic events (DFRE) in patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy and systolic anterior motion of the anterior mitral leaflet-mediated MV regurgitation (HOCM & MR). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, searching PubMed, Cochrane library and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies that evaluated DFRE in adults with HOCM & MR after MVP/MVR. We used a risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized studies, and analyses were performed using Cochrane Review Manager 5.3.5 for I2 statistics, funnel plots and forest plot and the generic inverse variance method for hazard ratios (HRs). We developed qualitative and quantitative syntheses of 35 and 23 studies, respectively, including levels of evidence of ½/3/4/5 = 3/1/11/11/9 and ½/3/4/5 = 0/1/11/11/0, respectively, from January 1980 to August 2017. A statistically significant difference between MVP and MVR favoured MVP for the prevention of DFRE in patients with HOCM & MR, on the basis of a significant reduction of the HR for DFRE: HR = 0.68 (0.57, 0.82), I2 = 68% (P = 0.002). The findings were as follows: (i) MVP should be the first-line treatment in patients with HOCM & MR (accuracy LEVEL A) and (ii) MVR may be harmful if it is used as the first-line treatment (accuracy LEVEL A).
我们评估了肥厚性梗阻性心肌病和二尖瓣前叶收缩期前向运动介导的二尖瓣反流(HOCM & MR)患者在二尖瓣成形术(MVP)和二尖瓣置换术(MVR)方面,在死亡、术后二尖瓣功能障碍、再次手术率和血栓栓塞事件(DFRE)上的差异。我们遵循系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目指南,在PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和ClinicalTrials.gov中搜索评估MVP/MVR术后HOCM & MR成年患者DFRE的研究。我们使用了非随机研究的偏倚风险评估工具,并使用Cochrane Review Manager 5.3.5进行分析,以计算I²统计量、绘制漏斗图和森林图,并使用通用逆方差法计算风险比(HRs)。我们分别对35项和23项研究进行了定性和定量综合分析,这些研究的证据水平分别为1980年1月至2017年8月的½/3/4/5 = 3/1/11/11/9和½/3/4/5 = 0/1/11/11/0。基于DFRE的HR显著降低:HR = 0.68(0.57,0.82),I² = 68%(P = 0.002),MVP和MVR之间在预防HOCM & MR患者的DFRE方面存在统计学显著差异,支持MVP。研究结果如下:(i)MVP应作为HOCM & MR患者的一线治疗方法(准确性等级A);(ii)如果将MVR用作一线治疗方法可能有害(准确性等级A)。