الفهرس 
introduction and aim of the workOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 256 |  |  |
| | | from | 256 | | |
Abstract
This study includes 80 patients who have undergone mitral valve surgery ( Repair ~ 40 patients, and replacement ee 40 patients) for acquired mitral valve diseases during the period from October, 1993 to February, 1996, at the Cardiovascular Surgery Division, The Toronto Hospital ( General Division), Toronto, Ontario, canada. In this study, both techniques of repair and replacement are compared as regards: patient’s population, feasibility of valve repair according to the operative pathology, early and late mortality associated with each technique, early and late morbidity, effect of each procedure on left ventricular function, pulmonary hypertension and left atrial size. Also, disClssion of the preoperative risk factors and their effect as predictors of successful or unsuccessful outcome. The mean age of the patients was 45.5 ± 14.3 years (range ~ 18- 74 years), 64 patients were females ( 80%) and 16 patients (20%) were males. The predominant etiology of mitral valve disease was rheumatic heart disease in both groups ( 70 patients out of 80 == 87.5%) The predominant mitral valve lesion was mitral regurgitation ,in the repair group (50%) and mitral stenosis in the replacement group (50%) More than 60% of patients in tbe repair group were in NYHA elass m & IV preoperatively and in the replacement group, > 75% were in NYHA class III & IV. postoperatively, in the repair group, more than 80% of patients became asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and in the replacement group, 76% of patients returned to the asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic state. There was no early or late mortality in the repair group during the follow-uP period versus one early death (2.5%) and one late death (2.5%) in the replacement group. The reoperation rate for significant mitral regurgitation was 10% for the repair group. In the replacement group, the reoperation rate was 2.5% due to valve thrombosis. The incidence of thrombo-emboliccomplications was higher in the replacement group then in the repair group: 7.5% versus 2.5%. The rate of early postoperative or hospital morbidity was higber in the replacement group (55% versus 27.5% in the repair group).