Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of Endoaortic as Compared to Transthoracic Clamp for Small Thoracotomy Mitral Valve Surgery: Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

Controversies remain on the increased rate of neurological events after small thoracotomy mitral valve surgery attributed to endoaortic balloon occlusion (EABO). Systematic literature search of databases identified 17 studies enrolling 6,643 patients comparing safety and effectiveness of EABO versus transthoracic clamp. In a meta-analysis, there was no difference in occurrence of cerebrovascular events, all-cause mortality, and kidney injury. EABO was associated with a significantly higher risk of iatrogenic aortic dissection (0.93% versus 0.13%; risk ratio, 4.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.62 to 13.49; p = 0.004) and a trend toward longer operative times. The data is limited to observational studies.

Meta-analysis of uninterrupted as compared to interrupted oral anticoagulation with or without bridging in patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVES: To assess safety and effectiveness of different periprocedural antithrombotic strategies in patients receiving long-term oral anticoagulation and undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: Studies comparing uninterrupted oral anticoagulation (UAC) with vit. K antagonists vs interrupted oral anticoagulation (IAC) with or without bridging anticoagulation before coronary procedures were eligible for inclusion in the current meta-analysis. Endpoints selected were 30-day composite of major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular and thromboembolic events (MACCE) and major bleeding. RESULTS: Eight studies (7 observational and 1 randomized controlled trial [N=2325pts.]) were included in the analysis. There was no difference in MACCE between UAC and IAC; RR (95%CIs): 0.74 (0.34-1.64); p=0.46 but there was a statistically significant MACCE risk reduction with UAC as compared to IAC with bridging: 0.52 (0.29-0.95); p=0.03. Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences between UAC vs IAC in regard to major bleeding: 0.62 (0.16-2.43); p=0.49; but as compared to IAC with bridging, UAC was associated with statistically significant 65% lower risk of major bleeding: 0.35 (0.13-0.92); p=0.03. Additionally, meta-regression analysis revealed significant linear correlation between log RR of MACCE (ß=-4.617; p<0.001) and major bleeding (ß=6.665; p=0.022) and mean value of target INR suggestive of higher thrombotic and secondary haemorrhagic risk below estimated INR cut-off of 2.17-2.27 within 30days. CONCLUSIONS: Uninterrupted OAC is at least as safe as interrupted OAC, and seems to be much safer than interrupted OAC with bridging anticoagulation in patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without PCI.

Cerebrovascular Events After No-Touch Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting, Conventional Side-Clamp Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass, and Proximal Anastomotic Devices: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) has been shown to reduce the risk of neurologic complications as compared to coronary artery bypass grafting performed with cardiopulmonary bypass. Side-clamping of the aorta while constructing proximal anastomoses, however, still carries substantial risk of cerebral embolization. We aimed to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies assessing 2 clampless techniques: aortic "no-touch" and proximal anastomosis devices (PAD) for OPCAB. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases were screened for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing "no-touch" and/or PAD with side-clamp OPCAB and reporting short-term (≤30 days) outcomes: cerebrovascular accident and all-cause mortality. A total of 18 studies (3 randomized controlled trials) enrolling 25 163 patients were included. Aortic "no-touch" was associated with statistically lower risk of cerebrovascular accident as compared to side-clamp OPCAB: risk ratio 95% CI: 0.41 (0.27-0.61); P<0.01; I(2)=0%. Event rates were 0.36% and 1.28% for "no-touch" and side-clamp OPCAB, respectively. No difference was seen between PAD and side-clamp OPCAB: 0.71 (0.33-1.55); P=0.39; I(2)=39%. A trend towards increased 30-day all-cause mortality with PAD and no difference with "no-touch" were observed when compared to side-clamp OPCAB. In a subset analysis, "no-touch" consistently reduced the risk of cerebrovascular accident regardless of patients' baseline risk characteristics. A benefit with PAD was observed in low-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic "no-touch" technique was associated with nearly 60% lower risk of postoperative cerebrovascular events as compared to conventional side-clamp OPCAB with effect consistent across patients at different risk.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting improves short-term outcomes in high-risk patients compared with on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and risks of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and to investigate the relationship between outcomes and patient risk profile. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and major conference proceedings databases were searched for RCTs comparing OPCAB and CABG and reporting short-term (≤ 30 days) outcomes. Endpoints assessed were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and cerebral stroke. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 100 studies, with a total of 19,192 subjects. There was no difference between the 2 techniques with respect to all-cause mortality and MI (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.09; P = .25; I(2) = 0% and OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.05; P = .19; I(2) = 0%, respectively). OPCAB was associated with a significant 28% reduction in the odds of cerebral stroke (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .009; I(2) = 0%). A significant relationship between patient risk profile and benefits from OPCAB was found in terms of all-cause mortality (P < .01), MI (P < .01), and cerebral stroke (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: OPCAB is associated with a significant reduction in the odds of cerebral stroke compared with conventional CABG. In addition, benefits of OPCAB in terms of death, MI, and cerebral stroke are significantly related to patient risk profile, suggesting that OPCAB should be strongly considered in high-risk patients.

Safety and efficacy of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation when compared with off-pump and conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: evidence synthesis from a comprehensive Bayesian-framework network meta-analysis of 134 randomized controlled trials involving 22 778 patients.

OBJECTIVES: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of care in patients with extensive coronary artery disease. Yet the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is believed to be a major determinant of perioperative morbidity. Novel techniques are sought to tackle the shortcomings of CPB, among them off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) and miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) systems have been extensively tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To assess perioperative safety and efficacy of MECC and OPCAB when compared with conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC). METHODS: Published literature and major congress proceedings were screened for RCTs evaluating the safety and efficacy of MECC, OPCAB and CECC. Selected end-points such as 30-day all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebral stroke, postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) and renal dysfunction were assessed in a Bayesian-framework network meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 134 studies with 22 778 patients were included. When compared with CECC, both OPCAB and MECC significantly reduced 30-day all-cause mortality [odds ratios (95% credible intervals): 0.75 (0.51-0.99) and 0.46 (0.22-0.91)], respectively. No differences in respect to MI were demonstrated with either strategy. OPCAB, when compared with CECC, reduced the odds of cerebral stroke [0.57 (0.34-0.80)]; 60% reduction was observed with MECC when compared with CECC [0.40 (0.19-0.78)]. Both OPCAB and MECC reduced the odds of POAF [0.66 (0.48-0.90) and 0.62 (0.35-0.98), respectively] when compared with CECC. OPCAB conferred over 30% reduction of renal dysfunction when compared with CECC [0.69 (0.46-0.92)]. MECC reduced these odds by more than 50% [0.47 (0.24-0.89)]. Ranking of treatments emerging from the probability analysis (highest to lowest SUCRA values) was MECC followed by OPCAB and CECC. CONCLUSIONS: MECC and OPCAB both improve perioperative outcomes following coronary bypass surgery when compared with conventional CABG performed with extracorporeal circulation. MECC may represent an attractive compromise between OPCAB and CECC.

Gentamicin-collagen sponge reduces the risk of sternal wound infections after heart surgery: Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Sternal wound infections are serious postoperative complications that increase the length of hospital stay and healthcare costs. The benefit of implantable gentamicin-collagen sponges in reducing sternal wound infections has been questioned in a recent multicenter trial. We aimed to perform a comprehensive meta-analysis of studies assessing the efficacy of implantable gentamicin-collagen sponges in sternal wound infection prevention. METHODS: Multiple databases were screened for studies assessing the efficacy of implantable gentamicin-collagen sponges after heart surgery. The primary end point was sternal wound infection, and secondary end points were the occurrence of deep sternal wound infection, superficial sternal wound infection, mediastinitis, and mortality. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were analyzed separately. By means of meta-regression, we examined the correlation between sternal wound infection and extent to which the bilateral internal thoracic artery was harvested. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies (N = 22,135, among them 4 randomized controlled trials [N = 4672]) were included in the analysis. Implantable gentamicin-collagen sponges significantly reduced the risk of sternal wound infection by approximately 40% when compared with control (risk ratio [RR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.98; P = .04 for randomized controlled trials and RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.89; P = .01 for observational studies). A similar, significant benefit was demonstrated for deep sternal wound infection (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42-0.88; P = .008) and superficial sternal wound infection (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83; P = .002). The overall analysis revealed a reduced risk of mediastinitis (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.91; P = .01). The risk of death was unchanged. A significant positive linear correlation (P = .05) was found between the log RR of sternal wound infection and the percentage of patients receiving bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Implantable gentamicin-collagen sponges significantly reduce the risk of sternal wound infection after cardiac surgery, with evidence consistent in randomized and observational-level data. However, the extent of this benefit might be attenuated in patients receiving bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts.