Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact , Dermatitis, Occupational , Dust , Wood , Humans , Wood/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Allergic Contact/diagnosis , Conjunctivitis, Allergic/chemically induced , Conjunctivitis, Allergic/etiology , Male , Asthma/etiology , Adult , Beauty Culture , Female , Patch Tests , Middle AgedABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is an emerging approach for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) which combines the excellent long-term outcomes of surgery with the early recovery and reduced short-term complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Here, we evaluated the effectiveness of HCR compared to PCI in patients with MVD. METHODS: A systematic database search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL/CCTR was conducted by June 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days and at latest follow-up between patients undergoing HCR versus PCI. RESULTS: A total of 27,041 patients (HCR: 939 patients, PCI: 26,102 patients) were included from seven studies published between 2013 and 2021. At latest follow-up, HCR was associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.80, p = 0.010) and target vessel revascularization (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37-0.64, p < 0.001), while the difference for MACCE did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20-1.05, p = 0.061). No differences were observed in terms of 30-day outcomes, nor rates of mortality or stroke at latest follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: HCR might be a valid alternative to multivessel PCI, demonstrating a lower incidence of MI and TVR. Center experience, well-coordinated heart team discussions, and good patient selection likely remain essential to ensure optimal outcomes. Future comparative studies are required to define the optimal target population.
ABSTRACT
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses an immense threat to healthcare systems worldwide. At a time when elective surgeries are being suspended and questions are being raised about how the remaining procedures on COVID-19 positive patients can be performed safely, it is important to consider the potential role of robotic assisted surgery within the current pandemic. Recently, several robotic assisted surgery societies have issued their recommendations. To date, however, no specific recommendations are available for cardiothoracic robotic assisted surgery in COVID-19 positive patients. Here, we discuss the potential risks, benefits, and preventive measures that need to be taken into account when considering robotic assisted surgery for cardiothoracic indications in patients with confirmed COVID-19. It is suggested that robotic assisted surgery might have various advantages such as early recovery after surgery, shorter hospital stay, and reduced loss of blood and fluids as well as smaller incisions. However, electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices, as well as CO2 insufflation should be managed with caution to prevent the risk of aerosolization of viral particles.
