ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Thoracic aortic surgeries remain with high mortality rates, often associated with postoperative neurological complications. The choice of the right cannulation site is extremely important for suitable blood supply and maintenance of vital functions, especially of the central nervous system. OBJECTIVES: To compare the influence of central versus peripheral arterial cannulation on neurological outcomes in patients undergoing thoracic aortic surgery through systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for clinical studies that reported in-hospital neurological outcomes after central or peripheral arterial cannulation during thoracic aortic surgery procedures until December 2013. The principal summary measures were Odds Ratio (OR) for central compared to peripheral arterial cannulation with 95% confidence interval (CI) and p-values considered statistically significant when <0.05. The ORs were combined across studies, using the DerSimonian-Laird random effects model and fixed effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel model--both models were weighted. The meta-analysis was completed using the software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ). RESULTS: Six studies were identified and included a total of 4459 patients (1180 for central and 3279 for peripheral cannulation). There was no significant difference between the central and peripheral groups regarding neurological outcomes. The meta-regression evidenced no relationship between neurological outcomes and the variables age, sex, previous coronary event, previous neurological event, urgency surgery, cardiopulmonary bypass time, activated clotting time and esophageal temperature with p > 0,05. CONCLUSION: When it comes to neurological outcomes in patients undergoing thoracic aortic surgery, there was no evidence that argues in favor of any choice of arterial cannulation site, which makes us reject any superiority of one approach over the other in this regard.
Subject(s)
Aorta, Thoracic/surgery , Cardiac Surgical Procedures , Catheterization , Nervous System Diseases , Postoperative Complications , Age Factors , Cardiac Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Cardiac Surgical Procedures/methods , Catheterization/adverse effects , Catheterization/methods , Data Mining , Female , Humans , Male , Nervous System Diseases/etiology , Nervous System Diseases/mortality , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Postoperative Complications/mortality , Sex Factors , SoftwareABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of blood versus crystalloid cardioplegia for myocardial protection in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for clinical studies that reported in-hospital outcomes after blood or crystalloid cardioplegia for myocardial protection during cardiac surgery procedures from 1966 to 2011. The principal summary measures were risk ratio (RR) for blood compared to crystalloid cardioplegia with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and P values (considered statistically significant when <0.05). The RRs were combined across studies using the DerSimonian-Laird random effects model and fixed effects model using the Mantel-Haenszel model - both models were weighted. The meta-analysis was completed using the software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, New Jersey). RESULTS: Thirty-six studies (randomized trials) were identified and included a total of 5576 patients (2834 for blood and 2742 for crystalloid). There was no significant difference between the blood and crystalloid groups in the risk for death (risk ratio [RR] 0.951, 95% CI 0.598 to 1.514, P=0.828, for both effect models) or myocardial infarction (RR 0.795, 95% CI 0.547 to 1.118, P=0.164, for both effect models) or low cardiac output syndrome (RR 0.765, 95% CI 0.580 to 1.142, P=0.094, for the fixed effect model; RR 0.690, 95% CI 0.480 to 1.042, P=0.072, for the random effect model). It was observed that there was no publication bias or heterogeneity of effects about any outcome. CONCLUSION: We found evidence that argues against any superiority in terms of hard outcomes between blood or crystalloid cardioplegia for myocardial protection during cardiac surgery.
