Efficacy of mitral valve repair in combination with coronary revascularization for moderate ischaemic mitral regurgitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of mitral valve repair (MVR) in combination with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for moderate ischaemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) remains unclear. To evaluate whether MVR + CABG is superior to CABG alone, the authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: The authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible RCTs from the date of their inception to October 2023. The primary outcomes were operative (in-hospital or within 30 days) and long-term (≥ 1 year) mortality. The secondary outcomes were postoperative stroke, worsening renal function (WRF), and reoperation for bleeding or tamponade. The authors performed random-effects meta-analyses and reported the results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Results: Six RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Compared with CABG alone, MVR + CABG did not increase the risk of operative mortality (RR, 1.244; 95% CI, 0.514–3.014); however, it was also not associated with a lower risk of long-term mortality (RR, 0.676; 95% CI, 0.417–1.097). Meanwhile, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative stroke (RR, 2.425; 95% CI, 0.743–7.915), WRF (RR, 1.257; 95% CI, 0.533–2.964), and reoperation for bleeding or tamponade (RR, 1.667; 95% CI, 0.527–5.270). Conclusions: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that MVR + CABG fails to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with moderate IMR compared to CABG alone.