External aortic clamping versus endoaortic balloon occlusion in minimally invasive cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery is safe, effective and increasingly popular. It is performed worldwide with the use of either external aortic clamping or endoaortic balloon occlusion.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science. Primary outcomes included aortic dissection, conversion to sternotomy, mortality, stroke and cross-clamp time. Secondary outcomes included atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, reoperation for bleeding, cardiopulmonary bypass times, myocardial infarction, use of intra-aortic balloon pump and length of hospital stay. The random effects model was used to calculate the outcomes of both binary and continuous data.

RESULTS

Thirty retrospective studies were included in the meta-analysis. The incidence of aortic dissection (pooled odds ratio = 3.88, 95% confidence interval = 1.06-14.18; P =0.04) and conversion to sternotomy (pooled odds ratio = 3.07, 95% confidence interval = 1.33-7.10; P = 0.009) was higher in the endoaortic balloon occlusion group than in the external aortic clamping group, in whom a direct comparison was possible. The remaining observational studies did not show any significant differences in either group. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (P = 0.37), stroke (P = 0.26), cross-clamp time (P = 0.20), atrial fibrillation (P = 0.18), acute kidney injury (P = 0.49), reoperation for bleeding (P = 0.24), cardiopulmonary bypass time (P = 0.06), myocardial infarction (P = 0.74), use of intra-aortic balloon pump (P = 0.11) or length of hospital stay (P = 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

External aortic clamping may be safer than endoaortic balloon occlusion with respect to aortic dissection and conversion to sternotomy. However, mortality, length of stay, stroke, cross-clamp time and other cardiovascular complication rates were similar between the 2 techniques.