• Filippo Sanfilippo, Christopher Johnson, Diego Bellavia, Marco Morsolini, Giuseppe Romano, Cristina Santonocito, Luigi Centineo, Federico Pastore, Michele Pilato, and Antonio Arcadipane.
• Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS-ISMETT (Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad alta specializzazione), Palermo, Italy. Electronic address: fgsanfilippo@ismett.edu.
• J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 2017 Oct 1; 31 (5): 1681-1691.

ObjectiveTo assess differences in mitral regurgitation (MR) grade between the preoperative and the intraoperative evaluations.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of 6 observational studies found from MEDLINE and EMBASE.SettingCardiac surgery.ParticipantsOne hundred thirty-seven patients.InterventionComparison between the preoperative MR assessment and the intraoperative evaluation conducted under general anesthesia (GA), with or without "hemodynamic matching" (HM) (artificial increase of afterload).Measurements And Main ResultsThe primary outcome was the difference between the preoperative and intraoperative MR grade under "GA-only" or "after-HM." Secondary analyses addressed differences according to effective regurgitant orifice area (EROA), regurgitant volume (RVol), color-jet area, and vena contracta width. Risk of MR underestimation was found under "GA-only" (SMD: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.79, p < 0.00001), but not "after-HM" (SMD: -0.16; 95% CI, -0.46 to 0.13, p = 0.27). Under "GA-only", EROA had a trend toward underestimation (p = 0.07), RVol was reliable (p = 0.17), while reliance on color-jet area and vena contracta width incur risk of underestimation (both p = 0.003). After HM, EROA accurately reflected preoperative MR (p = 0.68) while RVol had a trend toward overestimation (p = 0.05). The overall reported incidence of misdiagnoses was slightly more common under "GA-only" (mean 48%, 39% underestimation, 9% overestimation; range: 32%-57%) than "after-HM" (mean 41%, 12% underestimation, 29% overestimation; range: 33%-50%). Only the minority of misdiagnoses were clinically relevant: underestimation was around 10% (both approaches), but 18% had clinically significant overestimation "after-HM" as compared with 3% under GA-only.ConclusionsIntraoperative assessment under "GA-only" significantly underestimated MR. A more accurate intraoperative evaluation can be obtained with afterload manipulation, although HM strategy carries high risk of clinically significant overestimation.Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

20 keywords...

hide…