SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024
Comparison of Various Surgical Approaches for Moderate-to-Severe Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to systematically review the efficacy of various surgical approaches in the treatment of ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR). Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using computerized databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, up to February 2024. In our network meta-analysis, we utilized the Cochrane Handbook tool for quality evaluation, while a consistency model and the odds ratio (OR) were used to compile and analyze the data from the studies included, employing Stata 17.0 software for this purpose. Results: The systematic review included a total of 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which collectively involved 3111 patients and evaluated six different surgical techniques. The network meta-analysis demonstrated that mitral valve repair (MVr) exhibited a significant reduction in 30-day all-cause mortality rates when compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), mitral valve replacement (MVR), CABG combined with MVR, and transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair (TEER) using MitraClip. Furthermore, probability ranking analysis suggested that MVr may be the most effective approach in reducing 30-day all-cause mortality, while CABG combined with MVr had significantly fewer renal complications compared to CABG combined with MVR. Probability rankings also indicated that CABG+MVr may be the most effective technique in minimizing renal complications. However, there were no statistically significant differences observed in other outcome measures among the different surgical techniques. Conclusions: Current limited evidence indicates that CABG combined with MVr may be the best surgical approach for patients with IMR. However, these conclusions are tentative and require further confirmation from more additional high-quality studies. INPLASY Registration Number: INPLASY202420049. This study can be accessed at the following detailed address: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2024-2-0049/, last accessed on February 11, 2024.
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.