4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Comparison of immediate and long-term results of mitral balloon valvotomy with the double-balloon versus inoue techniques

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There is controversy as to whether the double-balloon or Inoue technique of percutaneous mitral balloon valvotomy (PMBV) provides superior immediate and long-term results. This study compares the immediate procedural and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing PMBV using the double-balloon versus the Inoue techniques. Seven hundred thirty-four consecutive patients who underwent PMBV using the double-balloon (n = 621) or Inoue technique (n = 113) were studied. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline clinical and morphologic characteristics between the double-balloon and Inoue patients. The double-balloon technique resulted in superior immediate outcome, as reflected in a larger post-PMBV mitral valve area (1.9 +/- 0.7 vs 1.7 +/- 0.6 cm2; p = 0.005) and a lower incidence of 3+ mitral regurgitation after PMBV (5.4% vs 10.6%; p = 0.05). This superior immediate outcome of the double-balloon technique was observed only in the group of patients with echocardiographic score < or = 8 (post-PMBV mitral valve areas 2.1 +/- 0.7 vs 1.8 +/- 0.6; p = 0.004). Despite the difference in immediate outcome, there were no significant differences in event-free survival at long-term follow-up between the 2 techniques. Our study demonstrates that compared with the Inoue technique, the double-balloon technique results in a larger mitral valve area and less degree of severe mitral regurgitation after PMBV. Despite the difference in immediate outcome between both techniques, there were no significant differences in event-free survival at long-term follow-up.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          The American Journal of Cardiology
          The American Journal of Cardiology
          Elsevier BV
          00029149
          May 1999
          May 1999
          : 83
          : 9
          : 1356-1363
          Article
          10.1016/S0002-9149(99)00100-9
          10235095
          48b39b9f-3aa5-49ef-97bc-6a5a1a4dfa01
          © 1999

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article