Institution representation in publications reporting mitral valve repair durability: A scoping review

Background Mitral valve repair durability currently plays a key role in operative decision making and in defining optimal surgical practice. However, mitral valve durability outcomes measures are not captured by national registries and limited to centers that publish their outcomes. In this study, w...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of cardiac surgery Vol. 37; no. 7; pp. 2163 - 2165
Main Authors Komlo, Caroline M., Brooks, Cornell, Amabile, Andrea, Mori, Makoto, Najem, Michael, Mullan, Clancy, Weininger, Gabe, Krane, Markus, Vallabhajosyula, Prashanth, Geirsson, Arnar
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 01.07.2022
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Background Mitral valve repair durability currently plays a key role in operative decision making and in defining optimal surgical practice. However, mitral valve durability outcomes measures are not captured by national registries and limited to centers that publish their outcomes. In this study, we aim to describe the scope of institutions represented by reports describing durability outcomes after mitral valve repair within the contemporary literature. Methods and Results A scoping review of the literature was performed to extract s potentially reporting mitral valve operation outcomes published between 2000‐2019. 370 full text articles reporting mitral valve durability outcomes by either reoperation rate or rate of recurrent mitral regurgitation met criteria for analysis. Study characteristics including case volume, country and institution of origin, and surgeon volume were extracted and used to calculate the proportion of total cases in the top 3, 5, and 10 represented countries and institutions by the sum of reported mitral valve repairs described. The top 5 of 21 countries represented 78.9% of the mitral valve repair cases described. The top 3 most represented institutions described 20,120 (37.3%) of all mitral valve repairs in 58 (33.9%) single‐center studies. Conclusion Published mitral valve repair durability data must be interpreted with caution when used to derive policies and practice recommendations that govern the cardiovascular community at large.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Review-1
ISSN:0886-0440
1540-8191
DOI:10.1111/jocs.16498