Mitral valve surgery for functional mitral regurgitation: prognostic role of tricuspid regurgitation

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of untreated moderate-or-more functional tricuspid regurgitation (FTR) on mid-term outcome of patients with functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) undergoing mitral valve surgery (MVS). Methods: From January 1988 to April 2003, 165 pati...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery 2009-04, Vol.35 (4), p.635-640
Main Authors: Di Mauro, Michele, Bivona, Antonio, Iacò, Angela L., Contini, Marco, Gagliardi, Massimo, Varone, Egidio, Gallina, Sabina, Calafiore, Antonio M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Disease Progression
Epidemiologic Methods
Female
Functional mitral regurgitation
Functional tricuspid regurgitation
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Mitral Valve - surgery
Mitral Valve Insufficiency - complications
Mitral Valve Insufficiency - surgery
Prognosis
Treatment Outcome
Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency - complications
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of untreated moderate-or-more functional tricuspid regurgitation (FTR) on mid-term outcome of patients with functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) undergoing mitral valve surgery (MVS). Methods: From January 1988 to April 2003, 165 patients having FMR underwent MVS with untreated FTR. Patients with organic mitral or tricuspid valve disease were excluded. The entire population was divided into two groups, group A: 102 patients (FTR 0/1+), group B: 63 patients (FTR 2+/3+). No statistical difference was found between two groups concerning preoperative and operative variables. MV was repaired in 137 and replaced in 28 cases; the impact of untreated moderate-or-more FTR was estimated by Cox analysis. Results: Thirty-day mortality was 6.7 (5.9% group A vs 7.9% group B, p = 0.607). Five-year actuarial survival was 73.5% (66.6–80.4%); 88.2% (83.0–93.4%) group A versus 46.0% (33.7–58.3%) group B, p 
ISSN:1010-7940
1873-734X
DOI:10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.12.040