Bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves for mitral valve replacement in patients < 70 years: an updated pairwise meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The ideal conduit for mitral valve replacement (MVR) remains elusive, particularly among younger patients due to increased life expectancy. We perform a pairwise meta-analysis comparing the use of bioprosthetic valves (BPV) and mechanical mitral valves (MMV) in patients < 70 years old undergoing MVR. METHODS: We comprehensively searched medical databases to identify studies comparing the use of BPV and MMV in patients < 70 years old undergoing MVR. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method in R version 4.0.2. Outcomes were pooled using the random effect model as risk ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: 16,879 patients from 15 studies were pooled. Compared to MMV, BPV was associated with significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality (RR 1.53, p = 0.0006) but no difference in 30-day stroke (RR 0.70, p = 0.43). At a weighted mean follow-up duration of 14.1 years, BPV was associated with higher rates of long-term mortality (RR 1.28, p = 0.0054). No difference was seen between the two groups for risk of long-term stroke (RR 0.92, p = 0.67), reoperation(RR 1.72, p = 0.12), or major-bleeding (RR 0.57, p = 0.10) at a weighted mean follow-up duration of 11.7, 11.3, and 11.9 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: The use of MMV in patients < 70 undergoing MVR is associated with lower rates of 30-day/long-term mortality compared to BPV. No significant differences were observed for risk of 30-day/long-term stroke, long-term reoperation, and long-term major bleeding. These findings support the use of MMV in younger patients, although prospective, randomized trials are still needed.

Opioid-free anesthesia versus opioid-based anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiovascular and thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite their extensive clinical use, opioids are characterized by several side effects. These complications, coupled with the ongoing opioid epidemic, have favored the rise of opioid-free-anesthesia (OFA). Herein, we perform the first pairwise meta-analysis of clinical outcomes for OFA vs opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) in patients undergoing cardiovascular and thoracic surgery. METHODS: We comprehensively searched medical databases to identify studies comparing OFA and OBA in patients undergoing cardiovascular or thoracic surgery. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or standard mean differences (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Our pooled analysis included 919 patients (8 studies), of whom 488 underwent surgery with OBA and 431 with OFA. Among cardiovascular surgery patients, compared to OBA, OFA was associated with significantly reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.57; P = .042), inotrope need (RR .84, P = .045), and non-invasive ventilation (RR, .54; P = .028). However, no differences were observed for 24hr pain score (SMD, -.35; P = .510) or 48hr morphine equivalent consumption (SMD, -1.09; P = .139). Among thoracic surgery patients, there was no difference between OFA and OBA for any of the explored outcomes, including post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.41; P = .025). CONCLUSION: Through the first pooled analysis of OBA vs OFA in a cardiothoracic-exclusive cohort, we found no significant difference in any of the pooled outcomes for thoracic surgery patients. Although limited to 2 cardiovascular surgery studies, OFA was associated with significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting, inotrope need, and non-invasive ventilation in these patients. With growing use of OFA in invasive operations, further studies are needed to assess their efficacy and safety in cardiothoracic patients.