Comparison of modified total leaflet preservation, posterior leaflet preservation, and no leaflet preservation techniques in mitral valve replacement – a retrospective study

Table 1 Clinical profiles of the three groups of patients

	Group A (n = 62)	Group B (n = 80)	Group C (n = 38)	p value
Female sex	39 (63%)	44 (55%)	22 (58%)	0.637
Mean age ± SD y	54.61 ± 8.871	52.64 ± 8.570	51.53 ± 7.062	0.168
Body surface area (m²)	1.60 ± 0.11	1.59 ± 0.12	1.56 ± 0.12	0.228
Diagnoses				0.637
MS	28	32	12	–
MI	20	30	18	–
MS + MI	14	18	8	–
Heart function (NYHA)				0.779
II	10	18	6	–
III	40	46	24	–
IV	12	16	8	–
LVEDD (mm)	54.68 ± 6.83	55.58 ± 8.57	56.42 ± 5.88	0.404
LVESD (mm)	45.39 ± 3.91	45.79 ± 7.30	47.21 ± 5.53	0.214
LVEF (%)	56.66 ± 5.05	56.93 ± 4.27	57.45 ± 4.09	0.700

LVEDD left ventricular end-diastolic dimension, LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction, LVESD left ventricular end-systolic dimension, NYHA New York Heart Association, MI mitral valve insufficiency, MS mitral valve stenosis, MS+ MI mitral valve stenosis and mitral valve insufficiency

ISSN: 1749-8090