Wei Zhili, Dong Shuai, Li Xuhua, Chen Yang, Liu Shidong, Song Bing
The First Clinical Medical College, Lanzhou University, 730000 Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Hospital of Lanzhou University, 730000 Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Nov 25;25(11):425. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2511425. eCollection 2024 Nov.
This study aims to systematically review the efficacy of various surgical approaches in the treatment of ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR).
A comprehensive literature search was conducted using computerized databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, up to February 2024. In our network meta-analysis, we utilized the Cochrane Handbook tool for quality evaluation, while a consistency model and the odds ratio (OR) were used to compile and analyze the data from the studies included, employing Stata 17.0 software for this purpose.
The systematic review included a total of 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which collectively involved 3111 patients and evaluated six different surgical techniques. The network meta-analysis demonstrated that mitral valve repair (MVr) exhibited a significant reduction in 30-day all-cause mortality rates when compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), mitral valve replacement (MVR), CABG combined with MVR, and transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair (TEER) using MitraClip. Furthermore, probability ranking analysis suggested that MVr may be the most effective approach in reducing 30-day all-cause mortality, while CABG combined with MVr had significantly fewer renal complications compared to CABG combined with MVR. Probability rankings also indicated that CABG+MVr may be the most effective technique in minimizing renal complications. However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in other outcome measures among the different surgical techniques.
Current limited evidence indicates that CABG combined with MVr may be the best surgical approach for patients with IMR. However, these conclusions are tentative and require further confirmation from more additional high-quality studies.
INPLASY202420049. This study can be accessed at the following detailed address: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-2-0049/, last accessed on February 11, 2024.
本研究旨在系统评价各种手术方法治疗缺血性二尖瓣反流(IMR)的疗效。
截至2024年2月,利用计算机数据库进行全面文献检索,包括PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、Embase和Web of Science。在我们的网络荟萃分析中,我们使用Cochrane手册工具进行质量评估,同时使用一致性模型和比值比(OR)对纳入研究的数据进行汇总和分析,为此使用Stata 17.0软件。
该系统评价共纳入20项随机对照试验(RCT),共涉及3111例患者,评估了六种不同的手术技术。网络荟萃分析表明,与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)、二尖瓣置换术(MVR)、CABG联合MVR以及使用MitraClip进行经导管二尖瓣缘对缘修复(TEER)相比,二尖瓣修复术(MVr)在30天全因死亡率方面有显著降低。此外,概率排序分析表明,MVr可能是降低30天全因死亡率最有效的方法,而与CABG联合MVR相比,CABG联合MVr的肾脏并发症明显更少。概率排序还表明,CABG+MVr可能是将肾脏并发症降至最低的最有效技术。然而,不同手术技术在其他结局指标上未观察到统计学显著差异。
目前有限的证据表明,CABG联合MVr可能是IMR患者的最佳手术方法。然而,这些结论是初步的,需要更多高质量研究进一步证实。
INPLASY注册号:INPLASY202420049。本研究可通过以下详细地址获取:https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-2-0049/,最后访问时间为2024年2月11日。