Left atrial appendage occlusion is a common procedure for patients with atrial fibrillation history when they underwent cardiac surgery. Before the LAAOS Ⅲ research results, this operation has been lacking strong evidence-based support. LAAOS Ⅲ is a prospective, double-blind, international multicenter, randomized blinded trial. According to the results of LAAOS Ⅲ, the left atrial appendage occlusion can reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism. This article will perform detailed interpretation of LAAOS Ⅲ research.
Objective To compare the effect of palliative mitral valve surgeries and medication therapies for secondary non-ischemic mitral regurgitation. Methods The clinical data of patients with non-ischemic functional mitral regurgitation treated in our hospital between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)＜40% underwent a dobutamine stress test, and a positive result was determined when the LVEF improved by more than 15% compared to the baseline value. Positive patients were divided into a surgery group and a medication group. The surgery group underwent surgical mitral valve repair or replacement, while the medication group received simple medication treatment. Follow-up on survival and cardiac function status through outpatient or telephone visits every six months after surgery, and patients underwent cardiac ultrasound examination one year after surgery. The main research endpoint was a composite endpoint of all-cause death, heart failure readmission, and heart transplantation, and the differences in cardiac function and cardiac ultrasound parameters between the two groups were compared. ResultsUltimately 41 patients were collected, including 28 males and 13 females with an average age of 55.5±11.1 years. Twenty-five patients were in the surgery group and sixteen patients in the medication group. The median follow-up time was 16 months, ranging 1-96 months. The occurrence of all-cause death in the surgery group was lower than that in the medication group (HR=0.124, 95%CI 0.024-0.641, P=0.034). The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant in the composite endpoint (HR=0.499, 95%CI 0.523-1.631, P=0.229). The New York Heart Association (NYHA) grade of the surgery group was better (NYHA Ⅰ-Ⅱ accounted for 68.0% in the surgury group and 18.8% in the medication group, P<0.01) as well as the grade of mitral valve regurgitation (87.5% of the patients in the medication group had moderate or above regurgitation at follow-up, while all the patients in the surgery group had moderate below regurgitation, P<0.01). There was no statistical difference in preoperative and follow-up changes in echocardiograph parameters between the two groups (P＞0.05). Conclusion For non-ischemic functional mitral regurgitation, if the cardiac systolic function is well reserved, mitral valve surgery can improve survival and quality of life compare to simple medication therapy.