Patients with mitral regurgitation are presented with several treatment modalities to. Some of them are managed only with drugs, but some may have to undergo surgery. The conventional surgery has been the most popular and most widely used surgical intervention. Percutaneous double-orifice repair has come in to play recently. Even though it is less invasive, its effectiveness has been a controversial issue.
Recently a study has been done to find which one is better. In this study, they have followed up patients who underwent both procedures. At the end of the study, they have concluded that both have similar clinical outcomes. The following comparison is made according to their study.
Conventional Surgery | Percutaneous Repair |
More invasive, therefore less safe. | Safer procedure. |
Primary Efficacy Endpoint - 73% | Primary Efficacy Endpoint – 55% |
2nd Surgery for valve replacement – 2% | 2nd Surgery for valve replacement – 20% |
Major adverse events at 30 days – 48% | Major adverse events at 30 days – 15% |
Although both procedures have above differences, the heart (left ventricle) has improved in equal amounts in both procedures.
Therefore, we can say that Percutaneous repair is as effective as the conventional surgery, but its use differs largely on the patients physical condition.
No comments:
Post a Comment