Abstract
A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: in patients with concomitant aortic and mitral valve disease is aortic valve replacement with mitral valve plasty (MVP) superior to double valve replacement (DVR) in terms of improved long-term survival? Altogether 156 papers were found using the reported search, of which seven represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Out of seven papers, that simultaneously compare these two treatment modalities, three favor MVP combined with aortic valve replacement (AVR) over DVR, two papers advocate the opposite and two failed to find any significant difference in long-term survival, freedom from reoperation and thromboembolic and bleeding complications between these two surgical options. All data presented derive from level 2b evidence. Critical appraisal of these studies is constricted by the large heterogeneity of the patients, diversity in treatment protocols and inherent selection bias. We conclude that currently the available evidence is insufficient to prove that AVR with MVP is superior to DVR in patients with double valve disease.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 238-242 |
Number of pages | 5 |
Journal | Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery |
Volume | 12 |
Issue number | 2 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Feb 2011 |
Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- Aortic valve replacement
- Double valve replacement
- Mitral valve repair
- Rheumatic heart disease
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Surgery
- Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine