Kay J H, Mendez M, Zubiate P, Yokoyama T, Vanstrom N, Gharavi M
Cardiovasc Clin. 1981;12(3):75-80.
There are few published reports regarding the long-term results of the operative treatment of significant mitral insufficiency secondary to coronary artery disease. The few available reports deal with mitral replacement and myocardial revascularization. However, we prefer mitral repair to mitral replacement with myocardial revascularization. Eighty-seven patients were operated upon with ejection fractions between 0.1 and normal. In 16 patients it was necessary to replace the mitral valve; however, the valve was repaired in the remaining 71 patients. By actuarial curve the survival rate at 9 years was 60 percent for the entire series, and 18 percent in the 16 patients with mitral valve replacement and revascularization. This contrasted with a 73 percent survival rate for those patients with repair of the mitral valve and revascularization. We feel strongly that if repair is done properly, it is far superior to mitral valve replacement for the patient with mitral insufficiency secondary to coronary artery disease.
关于冠心病继发严重二尖瓣关闭不全手术治疗的长期结果,已发表的报告很少。现有的少数报告涉及二尖瓣置换和心肌血运重建。然而,我们更倾向于采用二尖瓣修复术而非二尖瓣置换术加心肌血运重建术。87例患者接受了手术,射血分数在0.1至正常范围之间。其中16例患者需要置换二尖瓣;其余71例患者的瓣膜得到了修复。根据精算曲线,整个系列患者9年生存率为60%,二尖瓣置换加血管重建的16例患者生存率为18%。相比之下,二尖瓣修复加血管重建的患者生存率为73%。我们坚信,如果修复操作得当,对于冠心病继发二尖瓣关闭不全的患者,二尖瓣修复术远优于二尖瓣置换术。