Evaluation of the Efficacy of Transcatheter Intervention, Surgery, and Pharmacological Treatment of Functional Mitral Regurgitation — A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis with ≥12-Month Follow-up
Qi Cheng,Shu-Ying Ding,Ren-Hui Wang,Jin-Shan Han,Yuan-Zheng Ye,Xiao-Mei Li,Yi-Tong Ma,Zi-Xiang Yu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59958/hsf.7387
IF: 0.699
2024-05-23
The Heart Surgery Forum
Abstract:Aim: Evaluate, using a Bayesian network meta-analysis system, the long-term prognosis of patients with functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) undergoing individual or combined treatment with percutaneous intervention, surgical intervention, or optimal medical therapy. Compare the prognostic outcomes of the different treatment modalities. Methods: Computerized searches of Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases were performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were searched to compare prognoses following transcatheter interventions, surgery, and optimal pharmacological treatment for FMR, all with a construction timeframe of 21 October 2023. The primary endpoint event was all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoint events were heart failure readmission rate, mitral regurgitation (MR) ≤2+ improvement rate, New York Heart Association (NYHA) improvement rate (improvement to I–II), and degree of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement. Results: Twenty-six (26) papers were included, comprising 10 RCTs and 16 observational studies involving 5443 patients. A network meta-analysis showed no significant difference in prognosis for all-cause mortality among transcatheter interventions, surgical procedures, and optimal pharmacological treatments. For heart failure readmission rates, mitral valve surgery was superior to MitraClip (odds ratio (OR) = 11.82; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.67, 90.13). For NYHA (improvement to I–II) improvement rates, the results showed no significant differences for the various mitral interventions. For MR ≤2+ improvement rates, the MitraClip (OR = 3.07; 95% CI: 2.42, 3.76), MitraClip+Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) (OR = 2.93; 95% CI: 2.38, 3.52), mitral valve surgery (OR = 3.01; 95% CI: 2.24, 3.8), and annuloplasty (OR = 4.31; 95% CI: 3.12, 5.58) were superior to GDMT, and mitral valve surgery (OR = 0.07; 95% CI: –0.45, 0.62) was superior to MitraClip+GDMT. For the degree of improvement in LVEF, Carillon+GDMT (mean difference (MD) = –0.97; 95% CI: –1.72, –0.22) was superior to GDMT, mitral valve surgery was superior to Carillon+GDMT (MD = 4.67; 95% CI: 0.92, 8.39); MitraClip+GDMT (MD = 4.01; 95% CI: 1.28, 6.66), GDMT (MD = 3.71; 95% CI: 0.04, 7.35), and annuloplasty were superior to mitral valve surgery (MD = –6.42; 95% CI: –11.96, –0.78). Conclusion: There were no significant differences among the three treatment modalities of transcatheter intervention, surgery, and optimal drug therapy in improving all-cause mortality hard endpoint events, and no significant differences were seen in the rates of heart failure readmission and NYHA improvement (improvement to I–II). However, surgery was superior to transcatheter intervention and optimal drug therapy in terms of improvement in the degree of regurgitation and LVEF.
surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems