RESUMEN
Objective: Ventricular assist device is one of the treatment options for heart failure patients. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to aid in clinical decision-making of exchanging previous older ventricular assist device models to the newest one, HM3. Methods: The search was conducted across several databases until February 25, 2023, and was registered with the ID of CRD42023405367. Risk of bias was performed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. In order to rank and evaluate the pooled odds ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, we employed conventional and Bayesian network meta-analysis converted to surface under the cumulative ranking. Results: A total of 49 studies with 31,105 patients were included in this review. HM3 is the best device exchange choice that causes the lowest risk of mortality (HM3 (99.98) > HM2 (32.43) > HVAD (17.58)), cerebrovascular accidents (HM3 (99.99) > HM2 (42.41) > HVAD (7.60)), other neurologic events beside cerebrovascular accident (HM3 (91.45) > HM2 (54.16) > HVAD (4.39)), pump thrombosis (HM3 (100.00) > HM2 (39.20) > HVAD (10.80)), and bleeding (HM3 (97.12) > HM2 (47.60) > HVAD (5.28)). HM3 is also better than HM2 in hospital admissions (OR: 1.90 (95% CI: 1.15-3.12)). When complications were present, HM2 or Heartware ventricular assist devices exchange to HM3 lowered the mortality rate compared to exchanging it to the same device type. Conclusion: HM3 is the best device for all six outcomes. Exchange from Heartware ventricular assist devices or HM2 to HM3 rather than the same ventricular assist device type is recommended only if a complication is present.
RESUMEN
Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is a frequent procedure used in concomitant cardiac surgery. However, uncertainty still exists concerning the optimal extent of lesion sets. Hence, the objective of this study was to assess the results of various ablation techniques, aiming to offer a reference for clinical decision making. This review is listed in the prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under ID CRD42023412785. A comprehensive search was conducted across eight databases (Scopus, Google Scholar, EBSCOHost, PubMed, Medline, Wiley, ProQuest, and Embase) up to 18 April 2023. Studies were critically appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 for randomized control trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale adapted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for cohort studies. Forest plots of pooled effect estimates and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) were used for the analysis. Our analysis included 39 studies and a total of 7207 patients. Both bi-atrial ablation (BAA) and left atrial ablation (LAA) showed similar efficacy in restoring sinus rhythm (SR; BAA (77.9%) > LAA (76.2%) > pulmonary vein isolation (PVI; 66.5%); LAA: OR = 1.08 (CI 0.94-1.23); PVI: OR = 1.36 (CI 1.08-1.70)). However, BAA had higher pacemaker implantation (LAA: OR = 0.51 (CI 0.37-0.71); PVI: OR = 0.52 (CI 0.31-0.86)) and reoperation rates (LAA: OR = 0.71 (CI 0.28-1.45); PVI: OR = 0.31 (CI 0.1-0.64)). PVI had the lowest efficacy in restoring SR and a similar complication rate to LAA, but had the shortest procedure time (Cross-clamp (Xc): PVI (93.38) > LAA (37.36) > BAA (13.89)); Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB): PVI (93.93) > LAA (56.04) > BAA (0.03)). We suggest that LAA is the best surgical technique for AF ablation due to its comparable effectiveness in restoring SR, its lower rate of pacemaker requirement, and its lower reoperation rate compared to BAA. Furthermore, LAA ranks as the second-fastest procedure after PVI, with a similar CPB time.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Mitral valve repair or replacement (MVr/R) are procedures that aim to correct mitral regurgitation. The three techniques, namely conventional, minimally invasive, and robotic each present their advantages and setbacks. Previous studies had compared each technique with the other but mostly focused on two techniques. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we attempt to compare all three techniques, to provide a reference for the clinical selection of the best surgical scheme. METHODS: The literature search was performed in databases including PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, EBSCOHost, Wiley, ProQuest, and Embase, up to June 1st, 2022. Critical appraisal of studies was performed using Newcastle Ottawa Scale converted by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). We used bayesian network meta-analysis and conventional meta-analysis (random effects model) to rank and analyze pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Forest plots of pooled effect estimates comparing each treatment and ranking panel using Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) were used for the intervention measures. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies with 60,331 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Hospital stay was significantly lower in the group with robotic procedure compared to the conventional interventions in terms of ICU stay and overall length of stay. The mean difference of length of hospital stay days of the conventional group was 2.27 (1.31-3.30) days and of the minimally invasive -0.364 (-2.31-1.53) days compared to the robotic group. The robotic procedure was associated with longer cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times. Nevertheless, the robotic procedure was associated with lower infection (OR = 0.60 [95% CI 0.50-0.73)] rates and in-hospital mortality compared to conventional techniques (OR=0.53 [95% CI 0.40-0.70)] but not the minimally invasive techniques (OR = 1.74 [95% CI 0.48-6.31]). CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery showed more favorable surgical outcomes, including hospital stay, post-operational complications and in-hospital mortality, although it was associated with longer cross-clamp time and CPB time compared to other interventions. However, its high cost is a difficult consideration for its widespread clinical implementation.