ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are established interventions for alleviating symptoms and enhancing survival in individuals with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the long-term outcomes and incidence of reintervention associated with TAVI and SAVR remain uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the incidence of reintervention in TAVI versus SAVR. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Nine RCTs were included, with 5144 (50.9%) patients randomized to TAVI. Compared with SAVR, TAVI increased reinterventions (RR 1.89; 95% CI 1.29-2.76; p < 0.01) and the need for pacemakers (RR 1.91; 95% CI 1.49-2.45; p < 0.01). In addition, TAVI significantly reduced the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.32- 0.59; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.92-1.16; p = 0.55), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.94-1.17; p = 0.44), stroke (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.80-1.17; p = 0.76), endocarditis (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.70-1.33; p = 0.82), and myocardial infarction (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.79-1.41; p = 0.72) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe AS, TAVI significantly increased the incidence of reinterventions and the need for pacemakers as compared with SAVR.
ABSTRACT
Deep burn injuries necessitate effective debridement to promote healing and reduce complications. Traditional surgical debridement is the standard of care; however, it can lead to significant tissue loss, excessive bleeding and delayed healing. Bromelain-based enzymatic debridement offers a potential less invasive alternative that aims to selectively remove necrotic tissue while preserving viable ones. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis comprehensively compares bromelain debridement versus standard care in the management of partial and full-thickness burns. Cochrane Library, Embase, and Medline were searched until May 30th, 2024 for studies comparing bromelain debridement versus standard care. R version 4.4.0 was used to pooled risk ratio and mean difference in a random-effects model. We included seven studies, comprising 484 participants, of whom 238 (49%) were treated with enzymatic debridement. Bromelain significantly reduced time to eschar removal (MD - 7.60 days 95% CI [-9.76, -5.44]; I² = 70%) in comparison with standard care. Additionally, bromelain group presented a significant reduction in the risk of surgical excision (RR 0.17; 95% CI [0.06, 0.47]; I² = 79%) and need for autografts (RR 0.40; 95% CI [0.18, 0.93]; I² = 76%) in comparison with standard group. No differences were found in behalf of time to wound closure (MD -7.64; 95% CI [-18.46]-[3.18]; I2 = 86%), nor in Modified Vancouver Scar Scale (MD -0.36; 95% CI [-0.96]-[0.23]; I2 = 0%). Bromelain-based enzymatic debridement may accelerate eschar removal and reduce the need for surgical excision and autografts, without adversely affecting wound closure time or long-term scar quality.