外科二尖瓣修复和置换术后的病因特异性生存和再手术趋势:重建时间-事件数据的荟萃分析。

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Mohammed Al-Tawil, Serge Sicouri, Yoshiyuki Yamashita, Basel Ramlawi
{"title":"外科二尖瓣修复和置换术后的病因特异性生存和再手术趋势:重建时间-事件数据的荟萃分析。","authors":"Mohammed Al-Tawil, Serge Sicouri, Yoshiyuki Yamashita, Basel Ramlawi","doi":"10.1016/j.tcm.2025.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Current American and European guidelines recommend mitral valve repair (MVr) over replacement (MVR) whenever feasible. However, these recommendations are primarily based on data from patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR), whereas evidence supporting MVr in other etiologies, such as infective endocarditis (IE) or ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR), remains less conclusive. We systematically searched for and identified studies published after 2000 that compared MVr and MVR in patients with specific mitral valve disease etiologies, including DMR, IE, IMR, and rheumatic heart disease (RHD). A total of 61 records (10 DMR, 21 IE, 18 IMR, and 12 RHD) of 59 studies published between 2005 and 2024, were included. MVr consistently demonstrated superior survival compared to MVR in DMR and IE patients. Parametric time-varying hazard ratios revealed a sustained survival benefit of MVr in DMR and IE, whereas in IMR and RHD, the survival advantage was transient-lasting only up to six months and 2.7 years postoperatively, respectively-after which survival hazards between MVr and MVR became comparable. This was further corroborated by the results of a two-year landmark and the propensity-matched subgroup analyses. In DMR, MVr was associated with lower reoperation rates compared to MVR; however, in IE, IMR, and RHD, MVr was associated with significantly higher reoperation rates compared to MVR. Our study supports current guidelines favoring MVr over MVR, demonstrating sustained survival benefits in DMR. In IE-specific MR, MVr also showed consistent benefits over MVR, demonstrating that MVr should be prioritized when feasible. However, in IMR and RHD, there was no notable survival advantage of MVr over MVR, with higher reoperation rates observed with MVr. These findings highlight the need for etiology-specific and individualized surgical planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":51199,"journal":{"name":"Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Etiology-Specific Survival and Reoperation Trends Following Surgical Mitral Valve Repair and Replacement: A Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammed Al-Tawil, Serge Sicouri, Yoshiyuki Yamashita, Basel Ramlawi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tcm.2025.06.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Current American and European guidelines recommend mitral valve repair (MVr) over replacement (MVR) whenever feasible. However, these recommendations are primarily based on data from patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR), whereas evidence supporting MVr in other etiologies, such as infective endocarditis (IE) or ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR), remains less conclusive. We systematically searched for and identified studies published after 2000 that compared MVr and MVR in patients with specific mitral valve disease etiologies, including DMR, IE, IMR, and rheumatic heart disease (RHD). A total of 61 records (10 DMR, 21 IE, 18 IMR, and 12 RHD) of 59 studies published between 2005 and 2024, were included. MVr consistently demonstrated superior survival compared to MVR in DMR and IE patients. Parametric time-varying hazard ratios revealed a sustained survival benefit of MVr in DMR and IE, whereas in IMR and RHD, the survival advantage was transient-lasting only up to six months and 2.7 years postoperatively, respectively-after which survival hazards between MVr and MVR became comparable. This was further corroborated by the results of a two-year landmark and the propensity-matched subgroup analyses. In DMR, MVr was associated with lower reoperation rates compared to MVR; however, in IE, IMR, and RHD, MVr was associated with significantly higher reoperation rates compared to MVR. Our study supports current guidelines favoring MVr over MVR, demonstrating sustained survival benefits in DMR. In IE-specific MR, MVr also showed consistent benefits over MVR, demonstrating that MVr should be prioritized when feasible. However, in IMR and RHD, there was no notable survival advantage of MVr over MVR, with higher reoperation rates observed with MVr. These findings highlight the need for etiology-specific and individualized surgical planning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51199,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2025.06.002\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2025.06.002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前美国和欧洲的指南建议在可行的情况下进行二尖瓣修复(MVr)而不是置换(MVr)。然而,这些建议主要是基于退行性二尖瓣反流(DMR)患者的数据,而支持MVr的其他病因,如感染性心内膜炎(IE)或缺血性二尖瓣反流(IMR)的证据仍不太确凿。我们系统地检索并确定了2000年以后发表的比较MVr和MVr在特定二尖瓣疾病病因患者中的研究,包括DMR、IE、IMR和风湿性心脏病(RHD)。2005年至2024年间发表的59项研究共61项记录(10项DMR, 21项IE, 18项IMR和12项RHD)被纳入。与MVr相比,MVr在DMR和IE患者中始终表现出更高的生存率。参数时变风险比显示,MVr在DMR和IE中具有持续的生存优势,而在IMR和RHD中,生存优势是短暂的——分别仅持续到术后6个月和2.7年——之后,MVr和MVr之间的生存风险具有可比性。两年里程碑和倾向匹配亚组分析的结果进一步证实了这一点。在DMR中,与MVr相比,MVr与较低的再手术率相关;然而,在IE、IMR和RHD中,与MVr相比,MVr的再手术率明显更高。我们的研究支持当前的指导方针,支持MVr而不是MVr,证明了DMR的持续生存益处。在ie特异性MR中,MVr也显示出比MVr更一致的优势,这表明在可行的情况下应该优先考虑MVr。然而,在IMR和RHD中,MVr比MVr没有明显的生存优势,MVr的再手术率更高。这些发现强调了病因特异性和个体化手术计划的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Etiology-Specific Survival and Reoperation Trends Following Surgical Mitral Valve Repair and Replacement: A Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.

Current American and European guidelines recommend mitral valve repair (MVr) over replacement (MVR) whenever feasible. However, these recommendations are primarily based on data from patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR), whereas evidence supporting MVr in other etiologies, such as infective endocarditis (IE) or ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR), remains less conclusive. We systematically searched for and identified studies published after 2000 that compared MVr and MVR in patients with specific mitral valve disease etiologies, including DMR, IE, IMR, and rheumatic heart disease (RHD). A total of 61 records (10 DMR, 21 IE, 18 IMR, and 12 RHD) of 59 studies published between 2005 and 2024, were included. MVr consistently demonstrated superior survival compared to MVR in DMR and IE patients. Parametric time-varying hazard ratios revealed a sustained survival benefit of MVr in DMR and IE, whereas in IMR and RHD, the survival advantage was transient-lasting only up to six months and 2.7 years postoperatively, respectively-after which survival hazards between MVr and MVR became comparable. This was further corroborated by the results of a two-year landmark and the propensity-matched subgroup analyses. In DMR, MVr was associated with lower reoperation rates compared to MVR; however, in IE, IMR, and RHD, MVr was associated with significantly higher reoperation rates compared to MVR. Our study supports current guidelines favoring MVr over MVR, demonstrating sustained survival benefits in DMR. In IE-specific MR, MVr also showed consistent benefits over MVR, demonstrating that MVr should be prioritized when feasible. However, in IMR and RHD, there was no notable survival advantage of MVr over MVR, with higher reoperation rates observed with MVr. These findings highlight the need for etiology-specific and individualized surgical planning.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine
Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
18.70
自引率
2.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine delivers comprehensive, state-of-the-art reviews of scientific advancements in cardiovascular medicine, penned and scrutinized by internationally renowned experts. The articles provide authoritative insights into various topics, encompassing basic mechanisms, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of heart and blood vessel disorders, catering to clinicians and basic scientists alike. The journal covers a wide spectrum of cardiology, offering profound insights into aspects ranging from arrhythmias to vasculopathies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信