No abstract available
A meta-analysis of mitral valve repair versus replacement for ischemic mitral regurgitation
Background: The development of ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) portends a poor prognosis and is associated with adverse long-term outcomes. Although both mitral valve repair (MVr) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) have been performed in the surgical management of IMR, there remains uncertainty regarding the optimal approach. The aim of the present study was to meta-analyze these two procedures, with mortality as the primary endpoint.
Methods: Seven databases were systematically searched for studies reporting peri-operative or late mortality following MVr and MVR for IMR. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers and meta-analyzed according to pre-defined study selection criteria and clinical endpoints.
Results: Overall, 22 observational studies (n=3,815 patients) and one randomized controlled trial (n=251) were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated significantly reduced peri-operative mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.61; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.47-0.77; I(2)=0%; P<0.001] and late mortality (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.92; I(2)=0%; P=0.002) following MVr. This finding was more pronounced in studies with longer follow-up beyond 3 years. At latest follow-up, recurrence of at least moderate mitral regurgitation (MR) was higher following MVr (RR, 5.21; 95% CI, 2.66-10.22; I(2)=46%; P<0.001) but the incidence of mitral valve re-operations were similar.
Conclusions: In the present meta-analysis, MVr was associated with reduced peri-operative and late mortality compared to MVR, despite an increased recurrence of at least moderate MR at follow-up. However, these findings must be considered within the context of the differing patient characteristics that may affect allocation to MVr or MVR. Larger prospective studies are warranted to further compare long-term survival and freedom from re-intervention.
Rheumatic heart disease
No abstract available
Is a Robotic Operation Safe for Mitral Valve Repair?
No abstract available
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness
Objective: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a feasible alternative treatment to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. The present systematic review aimed to assess the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes of TAVI versus AVR, and meta-analyse standardized clinical endpoints.
Methods: An electronic search was conducted on 9 online databases to identify all relevant studies. Eligible studies had to report on either periprocedural mortality or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to be included for analysis.
Results: The systematic review identified 24 studies that reported on comparative clinical outcomes, including three randomized controlled trials and ten matched observational studies involving 7906 patients. Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences in regards to mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or acute renal failure. Patients who underwent TAVI were more likely to experience major vascular complications or arrhythmias requiring permanent pacemaker insertion. Patients who underwent AVR were more likely to experience major bleeding. Eleven analyses from 7 economic studies reported on ICER. Six analyses defined TAVI to be low value, 2 analyses defined TAVI to be intermediate value, and three analyses defined TAVI to be high value.
Conclusion: The present study demonstrated no significant differences in regards to mortality or stroke between the two therapeutic procedures. However, the cost-effectiveness and long-term efficacy of TAVI may require further investigation. Technological improvement and increased experience may broaden the clinical indication for TAVI for low-intermediate risk patients in the future.
Myasthenia gravis
No abstract available
Less is more: a shift in the surgical approach to non-small-cell lung cancer
No abstract available
Systematic review and meta-analysis of uniportal versus multiportal video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy for lung cancer
Background: Uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to the conventional multiportal approach in the treatment of lung cancer. The benefits of this uniportal technique have not yet been characterized in patients undergoing VATS lobectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of uniportal and multiportal VATS lobectomy for patients with lung cancer.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted using seven electronic databases. Endpoints for analysis included perioperative mortality and morbidity, operative time, length of hospital stay, perioperative blood loss, duration of postoperative drainage and rates of conversion to open thoracotomy.
Results: Eight relevant observational studies were identified and included for meta-analysis. Results demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the overall rate of complications, length of hospital stay and duration of postoperative drainage for patients who underwent uniportal VATS lobectomy. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups in regard to mortality, operative time, perioperative blood loss and rate of conversion to open thoracotomy.
Conclusions: The present meta-analysis demonstrated favourable outcomes for uniportal VATS lobectomy in the treatment of lung cancer compared to the conventional multiportal approach. However, long-term follow-up data is still needed to further characterize the benefits of the uniportal approach.
Type A aortic dissection
No abstract available
A systematic review and meta-analysis of multidetector computed tomography in the assessment of coronary artery bypass grafts
Purpose: The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of more recent computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in the assessment of graft patency after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG).
Material and methods: A systematic review was performed using nine electronic databases from their dates of inception to July 2015. Predefined inclusion criteria included studies reporting on comparative outcomes using ≥64 slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) and ICA. The primary endpoints included graft occlusion and significant graft stenosis ≥50%. Secondary analyses included the comparison of arterial versus venous graft conduits, and the use of different MDCT techniques.
Results: Thirty-one studies were identified according to selection criteria, involving 1975 patients with 5364 assessed grafts. Combined assessment of stenosis and occlusion for all grafts demonstrated a sensitivity of 96.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 94.3-97.4%] and specificity of 96.3% (95% CI 95.1-97.3%). CTCA assessment of venous grafts demonstrated higher sensitivity compared to arterial grafts, when testing for both occlusion and stenosis (97.6% vs 89.2%, p=0.004).
Conclusion: Results of this study demonstrated that CTCA had a relatively high pooled sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value compared to ICA. However, patient baseline characteristics varied between studies, and the results should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, our results indicate that CTCA should be recognized as an accurate and non-invasive investigation for graft patency in symptomatic patients after CABG.
