-
Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.) Mar 2011: This meta-analysis sought to determine whether minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (mini-MVS) improves clinical outcomes and resource utilization compared with...
OBJECTIVE
: This meta-analysis sought to determine whether minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (mini-MVS) improves clinical outcomes and resource utilization compared with conventional open mitral valve surgery (conv-MVS) in patients undergoing mitral valve repair or replacement.
METHODS
: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CTSnet, and databases of abstracts was undertaken to identify all randomized and nonrandomized studies up to March 2010 of mini-MVS through thoracotomy versus conv-MVS through median sternotomy for mitral valve repair or replacement. Outcomes of interest included death, stroke, myocardial infarction, aortic dissection, need for reintervention, and any other reported clinically relevant outcomes or indicator of resource utilization. Relative risk and weighted mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals were analyzed as appropriate using the random effects model. Heterogeneity was measured using the I statistic.
RESULTS
: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria (two randomized controlled trials and 33 nonrandomized studies). The mortality rate after mini-MVS versus conv-MVS was similar at 30 days (1.2% vs 1.5%), 1 year (0.9% vs 1.3%), 3 years (0.5% vs 0.5%), and 9 years (0% vs 3.7%). A number of clinical outcomes were significantly improved with mini-MVS versus conv-MVS including atrial fibrillation (18% vs 22%), chest tube drainage (578 vs 871 mL), transfusions, sternal infection (0.04% vs 0.27%), time to return to normal activity, and patient scar satisfaction. However, the 30-day risk of stroke (2.1% vs 1.2%), aortic dissection/injury (0.2% vs 0%), groin infection (2% vs 0%), and phrenic nerve palsy (3% vs 0%) were significantly increased for mini-MVS versus conv-MVS. Other clinical outcomes were similar between groups. Cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and procedure time were significantly increased with mini-MVS; however, ventilation time and length of stay in intensive care unit and hospital were reduced.
CONCLUSIONS
: Current evidence suggests that mini-MVS maybe associated with decreased bleeding, blood product transfusion, atrial fibrillation, sternal wound infection, scar dissatisfaction, ventilation time, intensive care unit stay, hospital length of stay, and reduced time to return to normal activity, without detected adverse impact on long-term need for valvular reintervention and survival beyond 1 year. However, these potential benefits for mini-MVS may come with an increased risk of stroke, aortic dissection or aortic injury, phrenic nerve palsy, groin infections/complications, and increased cross-clamp, cardiopulmonary bypass, and procedure time. Available evidence is largely limited to retrospective comparisons of small cohorts comparing mini-MVS versus conv-MVS that provide only short-term outcomes. Given these limitations, randomized controlled trials with adequate power and duration of follow-up to measure clinically relevant outcomes are recommended to determine the balance of benefits and risks.
PubMed: 22437892
DOI: 10.1097/IMI.0b013e3182167feb -
Journal of Vascular Surgery Nov 2009Thoracic endografts (stent grafts) have emerged as a less invasive modality to treat various thoracic aortic lesions. The intentional coverage of the left subclavian... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effect of left subclavian artery coverage on morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic aortic interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
Thoracic endografts (stent grafts) have emerged as a less invasive modality to treat various thoracic aortic lesions. The intentional coverage of the left subclavian artery (LSA) during the placement of these endografts is associated with several complications including stroke, spinal cord ischemia, and arm ischemia. In this review, we synthesize the available evidence regarding the complications associated with LSA coverage.
METHODS
We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE) from January 1990 through February 2008 for studies that included patients who received thoracic endografts and had intentional LSA coverage. Eligible studies had a control group that either received the endograft without LSA coverage or had primary revascularization prior to coverage. Two independent reviewers determined trial eligibility and extracted descriptive, methodological and outcome data from each eligible study. Meta-analyses estimated Peto odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to describe the strength of association between coverage and complications; the I(2) statistic described the proportion of inconsistency of treatment effect among studies not due to chance.
RESULTS
We found 51 eligible observational studies. LSA coverage was associated with significant increase in the risk of arm ischemia (OR 47.7; CI, 9.9-229.3; I(2) = 72%, 19 studies) and vertebrobasilar ischemia (OR 10.8; CI, 3.17-36.7; I(2) = 0%; eight studies); and nonsignificant increase in the risk of spinal cord ischemia (OR 2.69; CI, 0.75-9.68; I(2) = 40%; eight studies) and anterior circulation stroke (OR 2.58; CI, 0.82-8.09; I(2) = 64%, 13 studies). There were no significant associations between LSA coverage and death, myocardial infarction, or transient ischemic attacks. The incidence of phrenic nerve injury as a complication of primary revascularization was 4.40% (CI, 1.60%-12.20%). Data on perioperative infection were sparse and rarely reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Very low quality evidence suggests that LSA coverage increases the risk of arm ischemia, vertebrobasilar ischemia, and possibly spinal cord ischemia and anterior circulation stroke.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aorta, Thoracic; Aortic Diseases; Arm; Blood Vessel Prosthesis; Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Humans; Ischemia; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Patient Selection; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prosthesis Design; Risk Assessment; Spinal Cord Ischemia; Stents; Stroke; Subclavian Artery; Treatment Outcome; Vertebrobasilar Insufficiency; Young Adult
PubMed: 19878792
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.09.002