Search

Open in new tab Download slide OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare biological versus mechanical aortic valve replacement. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials and propensity score-matched studies published by 14 October 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Individual patient data on overall survival were extracted. One- and two-stage survival analyses and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS A total of 25 studies were identified, incorporating 8721 bioprosthetic and 8962 mechanical valves. In the one-stage meta-analysis, mechanical valves cumulatively demonstrated decreased hazard for mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74–0.84, P  <   0.0001]. Overall survival was similar between the compared arms for patients <50 years old (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.71–1.1, P  =   0.216), increased in the mechanical valve arm for patients 50–70 years old (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.70–0.83, P  <   0.0001) and increased in the bioprosthetic arm for patients >70 years old (HR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.17–1.57, P  <   0.0001). Meta-regression analysis revealed that the survival in the 50–70 year-old group was not influenced by the publication year of the individual studies. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding in-hospital mortality, postoperative strokes and postoperative reoperation. All-cause mortality was found decreased in the mechanical group, cardiac mortality was comparable between the 2 groups, major bleeding rates were increased in the mechanical valve group and reoperation rates were increased in the bioprosthetic valve group. CONCLUSIONS Survival rates seem to not be influenced by the type of prosthesis in patients <50 years old. The survival advantage in favour of mechanical valves is observed in patients 50–70 years old, while in patients >70 years old bioprosthetic valves offer better survival outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open in new tab Download slide Open in new tab Download slide OBJECTIVES Our goal was to compare results between a standard computed tomography (CT)-based strategy, the 'three-step preoperative sequential planning' (3-step PSP), for pulmonary valve replacement in repaired tetralogy of Fallot versus a conventional planning approach. METHODS We carried out a retrospective study with unmatched and matched groups. The 3-step PSP comprised the planning of mediastinal re-entry, cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and the main procedure, using standard 3-dimensional videos. Operative times (skin incision to CPB, CPB time, end of CPB to skin closure and cross-clamp time) as well as postoperative length of stay and in-hospital mortality were compared. RESULTS Eighty-two patients (49% classical tetralogy of Fallot) underwent an operation (85% with pulmonary homograft) with 1.22% in-hospital mortality. The 3-step PSP (n  = 14) and the conventional planning (n  = 68) groups were compared. There were no statistically significant differences in the preoperative characteristics. Differences were observed in the total operative time (P  =   0.009), skin incision to CPB (P  =   0.034) and cross-clamp times (74 ± 33 vs 108 ± 47 min; P  =   0.006), favouring the 3-step PSP group. Eight matched pairs were compared showing differences in the total operative time (263 ± 44 vs 360 ± 66 min; P  =   0.008), CPB time (123 ± 34 vs 190 ± 43 min; P  =   0.008) and postoperative length of stay (P  =   0.031), favouring the 3-step PSP group. CONCLUSIONS In patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot undergoing pulmonary valve replacement, preoperative planning using a standard CT-based strategy, the 3-step PSP, is associated with shorter operative times and shorter postoperative length of stay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the study sought to evaluate the impact of patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) on the risk of perioperative, early-, mid- and long-term mortality rates after surgical aortic valve replacement. Moderate/severe PPM increases perioperative, early-, mid- and long-term mortality rates proportionally to its severity. The findings of this study support the implementation of surgical strategies to prevent PPM in order to decrease mortality rates.

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of continuing versus stopping aspirin [acetylsalicylic acid (ASA)] preoperatively in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), ClinicalTrials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for randomized controlled trials that reported efficacy outcomes ofmyocardial infarction and mortality, and safety outcomes of blood loss, packed red blood cell transfusion and surgical re-exploration were compared between groups. Fourteen studies fulfilled our eligibility criteria and included a total of 4499 patients (2329 for 'continuing ASA' and 2170 for 'stopping ASA'). In the pooled analysis, continuing aspirin therapy did not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction [risk ratio 0.834, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.688-1.010; P = 0.063] or operative mortality (risk ratio 1.384, 95% CI 0.727-2.636; P = 0.323). Preoperative ASA increased postoperative chest tube drainage (mean difference 143 ml, 95% CI 39-248 ml; P = 0.007) and packed red blood cell transfusion (mean difference 142 ml, 95% CI 55-228; P = 0.001) but did not increase the risk of surgical re-exploration (risk ratio 1.316, 95% CI 0.910-1.905; P = 0.145). This meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference regarding the risk of operative mortality and myocardial infarction between the 'continuing ASA' and 'stopping ASA' strategies. On the other hand, the mean volume of blood loss and packed red blood cell transfusion was higher in the 'continuing ASA' group, but this finding did not translate into higher risk of reoperation for bleeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many surgeons are concerned about the flow capacity of a skeletonized internal thoracic artery (ITA) in comparison with a pedicled ITA used during coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). This work aims to summarize the evidence comparing the flow capacity of a skeletonized versus pedicled ITA during CABG. We performed systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA statement based on a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles. Studies included were original studies whose populations comprised patients undergoing CABG; compared outcomes between skeletonized versus pedicled ITA; the outcomes included data regarding intraoperative flow capacity of the grafts; the studies were prospective or retrospective or non-randomized or randomized controlled trials. In total, eight studies were identified and reviewed for eligibility and data were extracted. Forest plots and the summarized difference in means including 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated and meta-regressions were performed. There was a statistically significant difference in favour of the skeletonized ITA compared with the pedicled ITA in terms of flow capacity (random-effect model: additional 20.8 ml/min, 95% CI 6.6-35.0, P = 0.004), being the summary measures under the influence of heterogeneity of the effects, but free from publication bias. We observed a difference with regard to the type of study, since non-randomized studies together demonstrated the superiority of a skeletonized ITA (random-effect model: additional 32.3 ml/min, 95% CI 21.0-43.6, P < 0.001), but the randomized studies together did not show it (random-effect model: additional 13.2 ml/min, 95% CI -1.1 to 27.6, P = 0.071). Meta-regression demonstrated some modulation influence by female gender, age and diabetes on the flow capacity of grafts. In summary, in terms of flow capacity, a skeletonized ITA appears to be superior in comparison with a pedicled ITA during CABG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES To determine if there is any real difference between complete preservation (CP) and partial preservation (PP) of the mitral valve apparatus during mitral valve replacement (MVR) in terms of hard outcomes. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for clinical studies that compared outcomes [30-day mortality, postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), 5-year mortality or left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) before and after surgery] between MVR-CP vs MVR-PP during MVR until July 2012. The principal summary measures were odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI)—for categorical variables (30-day mortality, postoperative LCOS, 5-year mortality); difference means and standard error (SE)—for continuous variables (LVEF before and after surgery) and P values (that will be considered statistically significant when <0.05). The ORs were combined across studies using DerSimonian–Laird random effects weighted model. The same procedure was executed for continuous variables, taking into consideration the difference in means. RESULTS Eight studies (2 randomized and 6 non-randomized) were identified and included a total of 1535 patients (597 for MVR-CP and 938 for MVR-PP). There was no significant difference between MVR-CP or MVR-PP groups in the risk for 30-day mortality (OR 0.870; 95% CI 0.50–1.52; P = 0.63) or postoperative LCOS (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.11–1.08 and P = 0.07) or 5-year mortality (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.43–1.14; P = 0.15). Taking into consideration LVEF, neither MVR-CP nor MVR-CP demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in LVEF before and after surgery, and both strategies were not different from each other. No publication bias was observed. CONCLUSIONS We found evidence that argues against any superiority between both techniques of preservation (complete or partial) of mitral valve apparatus during MVR. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

OBJECTIVES To compare the safety and efficacy of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for clinical studies that reported outcomes at the 1-year follow-up after PCI with DES and CABG for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis. Sixteen studies (three randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies) were identified and included a total of 5674 patients (2331 for PCI with DES and 3343 for CABG). RESULTS At the 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference between the CABG and DES groups in the risk for death (odds ratio [OR] 0.691, P = 0.051) or the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or stroke (OR 0.832, P = 0.258). The risk for target vessel revascularization (TVR) was significantly higher in the PCI group compared with the CABG group (OR 3.597, P < 0.001). The risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was significantly higher in the PCI group compared with the CABG group (OR 1.607, P < 0.001). A publication bias was observed regarding the outcome of death and also a considerable heterogeneity effect on the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or stroke and MACCE. CONCLUSIONS CABG surgery remains the best option of treatment for patients with ULMCA disease, with less need of TVR and lower MACCE rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cardiac surgery, Suboptimal treatment, Coronary artery disease. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the evaluation of aortic mechanical valve dehiscence and Ventricular-artery by multislice computed tomography's post-processing techniques, volume rendering reconstruction of pseudoaneurysm, and three-dimensional reconstruction video of the left ventricular outflow tract.