Asian cardiovascular & thoracic annals · 2023
Sutureless valves versus aortic root enlargement for aortic valve replacement in small aortic annulus: A systematic review and pooled analysis.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Agarwal Rajat, Arnav Amiy, Ranjan Ashis, Mudgal Shiv, Singh Dharmendra
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Very few studies provide direct comparisons between aortic root enlargement and sutureless valve implantation in patients with a small aortic annulus who underwent aortic valve replacement. This study aims to provide comparative outcomes between the two in such a subset of patients, through a systematic review and pool analysis.
METHODS: The PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases were searched using the appropriate terms. The data from original articles mentioning aortic root enlargement and sutureless valves in a single or comparative study with another group of patients with a small aortic annulus were pooled and analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Both cardiopulmonary bypass (68.4 vs. 125.03 min, p < 0.001) and aortic cross-clamp times were significantly shorter in the sutureless valve group, along with a concomitantly higher number of minimally invasive surgeries. The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (9.76% vs. 3.16%, p < 0.00001), patient prosthesis mis-match and paravalvular leak was significantly higher in the sutureless valve group. In comparison, the incidence of re-exploration for bleeding was higher in the aortic root enlargement group (5.27% vs. 3.16%, p < 0.02). The two groups had no differences in the duration of hospital stays or mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Sutureless valves demonstrated a comparable hemodynamic outcome with aortic root enlargement in patients with a small aortic annulus. In addition to this, it greatly facilitated minimally invasive surgery. However, the high incidence of pacemaker implantation is still a concern for the widespread recommendation of sutureless valves, especially in young patients with a small aortic annulus.
METHODS: The PubMed, Scopus and Embase databases were searched using the appropriate terms. The data from original articles mentioning aortic root enlargement and sutureless valves in a single or comparative study with another group of patients with a small aortic annulus were pooled and analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Both cardiopulmonary bypass (68.4 vs. 125.03 min, p < 0.001) and aortic cross-clamp times were significantly shorter in the sutureless valve group, along with a concomitantly higher number of minimally invasive surgeries. The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (9.76% vs. 3.16%, p < 0.00001), patient prosthesis mis-match and paravalvular leak was significantly higher in the sutureless valve group. In comparison, the incidence of re-exploration for bleeding was higher in the aortic root enlargement group (5.27% vs. 3.16%, p < 0.02). The two groups had no differences in the duration of hospital stays or mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Sutureless valves demonstrated a comparable hemodynamic outcome with aortic root enlargement in patients with a small aortic annulus. In addition to this, it greatly facilitated minimally invasive surgery. However, the high incidence of pacemaker implantation is still a concern for the widespread recommendation of sutureless valves, especially in young patients with a small aortic annulus.