Journal of cardiac surgery · 2017
Endoscopic versus open radial artery harvesting: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled and propensity matched studies.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rahouma Mohamed, Kamel Mohamed, Benedetto Umberto, Ohmes Lucas B, Di Franco Antonino, Lau Christopher, Girardi Leonard N, Tranbaugh Robert F, Barili Fabio, Gaudino Mario
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We sought to investigate the impact of radial artery harvesting techniques on clinical outcomes using a meta-analytic approach limited to randomized controlled trials and propensity-matched studies for clinical outcomes, in which graft patency was analyzed.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and MEDLINE to identify publications containing comparisons between endoscopic radial artery harvesting (ERAH) and open harvesting (ORAH). Only randomized controlled trials and propensity-matched series were included. Data were extracted and analyzed with RevMan. The primary endpoint was wound complication rate, while secondary endpoints were patency rate, early mortality, and long-term cardiac mortality.
RESULTS: Six studies comprising 743 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Of them 324 (43.6%) underwent ERAH and 419 (56.4%) ORAH. ERAH was associated with a lower incidence of wound complications (odds ratio: 0.33, confidence interval 0.14-0.77; p = 0.01). There were no differences in graft patency, and early and long-term cardiac mortality between the two techniques.
CONCLUSION: ERAH reduces wound complications and does not affect graft patency, or short- and long-term mortality compared to ORAH.
METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and MEDLINE to identify publications containing comparisons between endoscopic radial artery harvesting (ERAH) and open harvesting (ORAH). Only randomized controlled trials and propensity-matched series were included. Data were extracted and analyzed with RevMan. The primary endpoint was wound complication rate, while secondary endpoints were patency rate, early mortality, and long-term cardiac mortality.
RESULTS: Six studies comprising 743 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Of them 324 (43.6%) underwent ERAH and 419 (56.4%) ORAH. ERAH was associated with a lower incidence of wound complications (odds ratio: 0.33, confidence interval 0.14-0.77; p = 0.01). There were no differences in graft patency, and early and long-term cardiac mortality between the two techniques.
CONCLUSION: ERAH reduces wound complications and does not affect graft patency, or short- and long-term mortality compared to ORAH.