ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2017
Surgical Treatment of Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation: Valve Repair Versus Replacement.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of recurrent mitral regurgitation after surgical or transcatheter mitral valve repair: a comprehensive review and a meta-analysis.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Factors determining early mortality in ischemic mitral regurgitation surgery.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2025Article
- Article
- Clinical Impact of Computational Heart Valve Models.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- On the simulation of mitral valve function in health, disease, and treatment.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2019Article
- Finite element analysis of annuloplasty and papillary muscle relocation on a patient-specific mitral regurgitation model.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewIschemic mitral regurgitation (MR), which occurs in about 20-30% patients with a prior myocardial infarction, is associated with worsening heart failure and an increase in cardiovascular mortality. It should be treated surgically if certain hemodynamic severity criteria are met and in patients who continue to experience symptoms of heart failure despite optimal medical therapy. However, current guidelines do not suggest which of the available approaches to mitral valve surgery-mitral valve (MV) repair or replacement (MVR) is superior for this indication. While MV repair is reported to confer improved survival, MVR may provide higher rates of freedom from recurrent MR. This article attempts to provide the reader with a comprehensive review and comparison of current techniques of mitral valve surgery in patients with severe ischemic MR. RECENT
findingsThe first randomized trial to compare MV repair versus MVR in patients with severe ischemic MR, the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network (CTSN) trial, was recently concluded and reported no significant difference in the primary outcome of left ventricular end systolic volume index between the two approaches at either 1- or 2-year follow-ups. Data comparing approaches of MV repair and MVR for ischemic MR is largely limited to small, non-randomized retrospective trials. The only randomized trial data to examine this issue suggested no difference in mortality with either MVR or MV repair; however, MVR was shown to be consistently associated with higher rates of MR recurrence. Certain echocardiographic features have been reported to predict poor outcomes with MVR and may help refine the selection of the surgical approach in the individual patient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.