Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022
Outcomes of hemi- vs. total arch replacement in acute type A aortic dissection: A systematic review and meta-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.
Ma Likang, Chai Tianci, Yang Xiaojie, Zhuang Xinghui, Wu Qingsong, Chen Liangwan, Qiu Zhihuang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Acute type A aortic dissections (ATAAD) pose a challenge to surgeons due to high mortality, and decision making regarding the appropriate procedure is controversial. This study compared the outcomes of hemiarch and total arch replacement for ATAAD.
METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for comparative studies on hemiarch versus total arch replacement that were published before May 1, 2022.
RESULTS: We included 23 observational studies with a total of 4,576 patients. Combined data analysis showed that early mortality (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97; P = 0.02), incidence of postoperative permanent neurological dysfunction (RR = 0.72; 95%CI:0.54∼0.94; P = 0.02), and incidence of renal failure and dialysis (RR = 0.82; 95%CI:0.71∼0.96; P = 0.01) were all lower for hemiarch than for total arch replacement. However, hemiarch replacement had a higher rate of late mortality (RR = 1.37; 95%CI:1.10∼1.71; P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of re-operation for bleeding, aortic re-operation, or postoperative pneumonia.
CONCLUSION: In this study, hemiarch replacement had better early outcomes but a higher late mortality rate than total arch replacement. Decisions regarding the extent of arch repair should be made according to location and extent of ATAAD and the experience of surgeons to ensure the most favorable prognosis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: [INPLASY.COM], identifier [INPLASY202250088].
METHODS: The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for comparative studies on hemiarch versus total arch replacement that were published before May 1, 2022.
RESULTS: We included 23 observational studies with a total of 4,576 patients. Combined data analysis showed that early mortality (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70-0.97; P = 0.02), incidence of postoperative permanent neurological dysfunction (RR = 0.72; 95%CI:0.54∼0.94; P = 0.02), and incidence of renal failure and dialysis (RR = 0.82; 95%CI:0.71∼0.96; P = 0.01) were all lower for hemiarch than for total arch replacement. However, hemiarch replacement had a higher rate of late mortality (RR = 1.37; 95%CI:1.10∼1.71; P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of re-operation for bleeding, aortic re-operation, or postoperative pneumonia.
CONCLUSION: In this study, hemiarch replacement had better early outcomes but a higher late mortality rate than total arch replacement. Decisions regarding the extent of arch repair should be made according to location and extent of ATAAD and the experience of surgeons to ensure the most favorable prognosis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: [INPLASY.COM], identifier [INPLASY202250088].