|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
Treatment of ischaemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) remains controversial. While IMR is associated with worse outcomes, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies provided conflicting evidence regarding the benefit of mitral valve replacement (MVR) or repair (MVr) in addition to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We conducted a meta-analysis incorporating data from published RCTs and observational studies comparing CABG vs. CABG + MVR/MVr.We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane for RCTs and observational studies comparing CABG (Group 1) vs. CABG + MVR/MVr (Group 2). Outcome was 30-day and 1-year mortality after surgical intervention. Mantel–Haenszel odds ratio (OR) was calculated using random-effects meta-analysis for the outcome. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistics. Four RCTs and 11 observational studies met the inclusion criteria (5781 patients, 507 in RCTs, 5274 in observational studies). Group 1 vs. 2 weighted mean left ventricular ejection fraction in RCTs and combined RCTs/observational studies was 41.5 ± 12.3 vs. 40.3 ± 10.4% ( P -value = 0.24) and 45.5 ± 7.2 vs. 38 ± 10% ( P -value < 0.001), respectively. In RCTs, there was no difference in 30-day [OR: 0.95, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.30–3.08, P = 0.94] or 1-year (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.43–1.87, P = 0.78) mortality, respectively. For combined RCTs/observational studies, there was no difference in mortality at 30 days (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.43–1.04, P = 0.08) or at 1 year (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.7–1.15, P = 0.39). In a meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies of IMR patients, the addition of MVR/MVr to CABG did not improve survival.