Percutaneous Closure vs. Surgical Repair for Postinfarction Ventricular Septal Rupture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Ventricular septal rupture is an important high-mortality complication in the scope of myocardial infarctions. The effectiveness of different treatment modalities is still controversial. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy of percutaneous closure vs. surgical repair for the treatment of postinfarction ventricular septal rupture (PI-VSR). METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed on relevant studies found through PubMed®, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (or CNKI), Wanfang Data, and VIP databases searching. The primary outcome was a comparison of in-hospital mortality between the two treatments, and the secondary outcome was documentation of one-year mortality, postoperative residual shunts, and postoperative cardiac function. Differences were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the relationships between predefined surgical variables and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Qualified studies (742 patients from 12 trials) were found and investigated for this meta-analysis (459 patients in the surgical repair group, 283 patients in the percutaneous closure group). When comparing surgical repair to percutaneous closure, it was found that the former significantly reduced in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.96, P=0.03) and postoperative residual shunts (OR: 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.10, P<0.00001). Surgical repair also improved postoperative cardiac function overall (OR: 3.89, 95% CI 1.10-13.74, P=0.04). However, there was no statistically significant difference in one-year mortality between the two surgical strategies (OR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.24-1.39, P=0.23). CONCLUSION: We found that surgical repair appears to be a more effective therapeutic option than percutaneous closure for PI-VSR.

Percutaneous closure versus surgical repair for ruptured sinus of valsalva aneurysm: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives: Ruptured sinus of Valsalva aneurysm (RSVA) often has an abrupt onset, and can chest pain, acute heart failure, and even sudden death. The effectiveness of different treatment modalities remains controversial. Thus, we completed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficiency and safety of traditional surgery vs. percutaneous closure (PC) for RSVA. Methods: We carried out a meta-analysis using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Data, and the China Science and Technology Journal Database. The primary outcome was comparing in-hospital mortality between the two procedures, and the secondary outcome was documenting postoperative residual shunts, postoperative aortic regurgitation, and length of hospital stay in the two groups. Differences were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the relationships between predefined surgical variables and clinical outcomes. This meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software (version 5.3). Results: The final qualifying studies included 330 patients from 10 trials (123 in the percutaneous closure group, and 207 in the surgical repair group). When PC was compared to surgical repair, there were no statistically significant differences in in-hospital mortality (overall OR: 0.47, 95%CI 0.05-4.31, P = 0.50). However, percutaneous closure did significantly decrease the average length of hospital stay (OR: -2.13, 95% CI -3.05 to -1.20, P < 0.00001) when compared to surgical repair, but there were no significant between-group differences in the rates of postoperative residual shunts (overall OR: 1.54, 95%CI 0.55-4.34, P = 0.41) or postoperative aortic regurgitation (overall OR: 1.54, 95%CI 0.51-4.68, P = 0.45). Conclusion: PC may become a valuable alternative to surgical repair for RSVA.

Percutaneous Closure vs. Surgical Repair for Postinfarction Ventricular Septal Rupture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT Introduction: Ventricular septal rupture is an important high-mortality complication in the scope of myocardial infarctions. The effectiveness of different treatment modalities is still controversial. This meta-analysis compares the efficacy of percutaneous closure vs. surgical repair for the treatment of postinfarction ventricular septal rupture (PI-VSR). Methods: A meta-analysis was performed on relevant studies found through PubMed®, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (or CNKI), Wanfang Data, and VIP databases searching. The primary outcome was a comparison of in-hospital mortality between the two treatments, and the secondary outcome was documentation of one-year mortality, postoperative residual shunts, and postoperative cardiac function. Differences were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the relationships between predefined surgical variables and clinical outcomes. Results: Qualified studies (742 patients from 12 trials) were found and investigated for this meta-analysis (459 patients in the surgical repair group, 283 patients in the percutaneous closure group). When comparing surgical repair to percutaneous closure, it was found that the former significantly reduced in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.96, P=0.03) and postoperative residual shunts (OR: 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.10, P<0.00001). Surgical repair also improved postoperative cardiac function overall (OR: 3.89, 95% CI 1.10-13.74, P=0.04). However, there was no statistically significant difference in one-year mortality between the two surgical strategies (OR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.24-1.39, P=0.23). Conclusion: We found that surgical repair appears to be a more effective therapeutic option than percutaneous closure for PI-VSR.