Perioperative prophylactic corticosteroids for cardiac surgery in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Perioperative corticosteroids have been used for pediatric cardiac surgery for decades, but the underlying evidence is conflicting. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of perioperative prophylactic corticosteroids in pediatric heart surgeries. METHODS: We searched electronic databases until March 2023 to retrieve all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that administered perioperative prophylactic corticosteroids to children undergoing heart surgery. We used RevMan 5.4 to pool risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs). RESULTS: A total of 12 RCTs (2,209 patients) were included in our review. Corticosteroids administration was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.37-1.02, I2 = 0%; moderate certainty); however, it was associated with a lower duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) (MD -0.63 days; 95% CI: -1.16 to -0.09 days, I2 = 41%; high certainty). Corticosteroids did not affect the length of ICU and hospital stay but significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS) (RR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.60-0.96, I2 = 0%; moderate certainty) and reoperation (RR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.19-0.74, I2 = 0%; moderate certainty). There was no increase in adverse events except a higher risk of hyperglycemia and postoperative insulin use. CONCLUSIONS: The use of perioperative corticosteroids in pediatric heart surgeries is associated with a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality without attaining statistical significance. Corticosteroids reduced MV duration, and probably decrease the incidence of LCOS, and reoperations. The choice of corticosteroid agent and dose is highly variable and further larger studies may help determine the ideal agent, dose, and patient population for this prophylactic therapy.

Minimally invasive vs. conventional mitral valve surgery: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Objective: The evidence underlying the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) is inconclusive. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate whether MIMVS improves clinical outcomes compared with conventional sternotomy. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2024 for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing MIMVS with conventional mitral valve surgery. RevMan 5.4 was used to analyse the data with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) as the effect measures. Results: Eight studies reporting data on 7 RCTs were included in our review. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality, the number of patients requiring blood product transfusion, and the change from baseline in the SF-36 physical function scores between the MIMVS and conventional sternotomy groups. MIMVS reduced the length of hospital stay (MD -2.02 days, 95% CI: -3.66, -0.39) but did not affect the length of ICU stay, re-operation for bleeding, and the incidence of renal injury, wound infection, neurological events, and postoperative moderate or severe mitral regurgitation. MIMVS was associated with a trend toward lower postoperative pain scores (MD -1.06; 95% CI: -3.96 to 0.75). Conclusions: MIMVS reduced the number of days spent in the hospital and showed a trend toward lower postoperative pain scores, but it did not decrease the risk of all-cause mortality or the number of patients needing blood product transfusions. Further large-scale RCTs are required to inform definitive conclusions, particularly with regard to quality-of-life outcomes investigating functional recovery. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023482122).