Outcomes following minimally invasive approaches vs. open extended lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: a propensity-matched analysis of the National Cancer Database.

Background: Traditional thoracotomy, an invasive surgical procedure, has been the standard approach for extended lobectomy in treating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has gained traction with advancements in surgical techniques. Despite this, the outcomes of extended lobectomy via a minimally invasive approach remain largely uncharted. Using the comprehensive National Cancer Database (NCDB), our research aimed to clarify the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of minimally invasive extended lobectomy in patients diagnosed with NSCLC. Methods: Our study encompassed a selection of patients with NSCLC who underwent extended lobectomy (defined as lobectomy or bilobectomy with chest wall, diaphragm or pericardial resection) between 2010 and 2014. Through propensity score matching (PSM), we ensured a balanced comparison between patients who underwent MIS and those who opted for the traditional open extended lobectomy. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were employed to discern whether the surgical approach had any significant impact on the prognosis of patients undergoing this specific procedure. Results: Before PSM, our dataset included 3,934 patients. After 1:2 PSM, the MIS group included 683 cases, while the open group included 1,317 cases. One notable finding was the reduced average postoperative hospital stay for the MIS group at 7.15 days compared to the open group at 8.40 days (P<0.001). Furthermore, the 5-year survival rate was similar, with the MIS group at 53.1% and the open group at 51.3% (P=0.683). Conclusions: The results of our study suggest that MIS for extended lobectomy not only is safe and feasible but also is oncologically effective. However, it is imperative to note that these encouraging findings necessitate further validation through prospective studies to ascertain the full scope of benefits and potential risks associated with MIS.

Endovascular Treatment of Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Using Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.

OBJECTIVE: The undisputed gold standard of treatment for type A aortic dissections (TAAD) is open surgery. Anecdotal reports have assessed thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as a last resort for highly selected candidates. The present study aims to evaluate endovascular outcomes in TAAD patients who are unsuitable for open surgery whilst having TEVAR-compatible aortic anatomy. METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed up to 19 May 2022. Time-to-event data were reconstructed using Kaplan-Meier curves from the source literature. RESULTS: In 20 eligible studies, 311 patients underwent TEVAR for acute, subacute, or chronic TAAD. Mean age at the time of the operation was 60.70 ± 8.00 years and 75.48% (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 60.33-88.46%) of the included patients were males. Mean operative time was 169.40 ± 30.70 min. Overall, 0.44% (95% CI, 0.00-4.83%) of the cases were converted to salvage open surgery. Technical failure, stroke, and endoleaks occurred in 0.22%, 0.1%, and 8.52% of the cohort, respectively. Thirty-day postoperative complication rate was 7.08% (95% CI, 1.52-14.97%), whereas late complications developed in 16.89% (95% CI, 7.75-27.88%) of the patients. One-, three-, and five-year survival rates were estimated at 87.15%, 82.52% and 82.31%, respectively. Reintervention was required in 8.38% of the cohort over a mean follow-up of 32.40 ± 24.40 months. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR seems to be feasible in highly selected patients with TAAD who cannot tolerate open surgery. Overcoming technical limitations and acquiring long-term data are warranted to safely define the place of endovascular treatment in the armamentarium of TAAD repair.

Long-term outcomes of robotic versus video-assisted pulmonary lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed patient data.

Background: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) and robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (RATS) are two viable options in patients undergoing lobectomy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the debate on which one is superior is unceasing. Methods: PubMed and Scopus databases were queried for studies including patients who underwent either VATS or RATS lobectomy. This meta-analysis is in accordance with the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Individual patient data on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted from Kaplan-Meier curves. One- and two-stage survival analyses, and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Results: Ten studies met our eligibility criteria, incorporating 1,231 and 814 patients in the VATS and RATS groups, respectively. Patients who underwent VATS had similar OS compared with those who underwent RATS [hazard ratio (HR): 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.27, P=0.538] during a weighted median follow-up of 51.7 months, and this was validated by the two-stage meta-analysis (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.85-1.90, P=0.24, I2=68.50%). Regarding DFS, the two groups also displayed equivalent outcomes (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.92-1.25, P=0.371) and this was once again validated by the two-stage meta-analysis (HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.85-1.30, P=0.67, I2=28.27%). Both RATS and VATS had similar postoperative complication rates, prolonged air leak, conversion to thoracotomy and operative times. RATS was found to be superior to VATS in terms of length of hospital stay and number of lymph nodes dissected. Conclusions: In patients undergoing lobectomy for NSCLC, VATS and RATS have equivalent overall and DFS at a median follow-up of 51.7 months.

Management and outcomes of mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma of the ampulla of Vater: A systematic review and pooled analysis of 56 patients.

BACKGROUND: Tumors of mixed neuroendocrine and nonneuroendocrine histology are classified as collision, combined, or amphicrine and can occur in most organs, including the hepato-pancreato-biliary tract. Given the rarity of mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinoma (MANEC) of the ampulla of Vater, the patient characteristics, management, and outcomes remain unclear. We sought to systematically review the worldwide literature on ampullary MANECs. METHODS: Eligible studies were identified through a systematic search of the MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases (end-of-search-date: January 5th, 2022), according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies reporting on 56 patients with ampullary MANEC were included. The median age was 63.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 51.0-69.0) years and 55.6% were male (n = 25/45). Most had combined tumors (64.4%; n = 29/45), followed by collision (24.4%; n = 11/45), and amphicrine tumors (11.1%; n = 5/45). More than half had lymph node metastasis (56.8%; n = 25/44), yet only 7.9% had distant metastasis (n = 3/38). Tumor resection (i.e., mostly pancreaticoduodenectomy) was performed in 96.3% (n = 52/54), followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in 61.8% (n = 21/34). Nearly half experienced disease recurrence (47.2%; n = 17/36) over a median follow-up of 12.0 (IQR: 3.0-16.0) months, and 42.1% (n = 16/38) died over a median follow-up of 12.0 (IQR: 4.0-18.0) months. The most common cause of death was disease progression/recurrence in 81.3% (n = 13/16). CONCLUSION: Early diagnosis and management of ampullary MANEC is challenging yet crucial to improve outcomes since many patients are diagnosed at an advanced disease stage and have unfavorable outcomes. Multicenter granular data are warranted to further understand and improve outcomes in these patients.

Surgical Management of G3 Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Grade 3 (G3) gastroenteropancreatic (GEP) neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are rare, aggressive tumors with poor prognosis. The World Health Organization 2017 and 2019 classifications further subdivided G3 NENs into G3 neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs). Current guidelines favor medical management in most of these patients, and the role of surgical management is not well defined. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of surgical management versus nonsurgical management for G3 GEP NENs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of the MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases (end-of-search date: 16 July 2021) was conducted. Individual patient survival data were reconstructed, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Fourteen studies comprising 1810 surgical and 910 nonsurgical patients were systematically reviewed. Publication bias adjusted meta-analysis of 12 studies (1788 surgical and 857 nonsurgical patients) showed increased overall survival (OS) after surgical compared with nonsurgical management for G3 GEP NENs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.53]. Subgroup meta-analyses showed increased OS after surgical management for both pancreatic and gastrointestinal primary sites separately. In another subgroup meta-analysis of G3 GEP NETs (not NECs), surgical management was associated with increased OS compared with nonsurgical management (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical management of G3 GEP NENs may provide a potential survival benefit in well-selected cases. Further research is needed to define which patients will benefit most from surgical versus nonsurgical management. The current literature is limited by inconsistent reporting of survival outcomes in surgical versus nonsurgical groups, tumor grade, differentiation, primary tumor site, and selection criteria for surgical and nonsurgical management.

Unilateral versus bilateral anterograde cerebral perfusion in acute type A aortic dissection repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to compare the safety and efficacy of unilateral anterograde cerebral perfusion (UACP) and bilateral anterograde cerebral perfusion (BACP) for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). METHODS: A systematic review of the MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases (last search: August 7th, 2021) was performed according to the PRISMA statement. Studies directly comparing UACP versus BACP for ATAAD were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Eight retrospective cohort studies were identified, incorporating 2416 patients (UACP: 843, BACP: 1573). No statistically significant difference was observed regarding in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]:1.05 [95% Confidence Interval (95% CI):0.70-1.57]), permanent neurological deficit (PND) (OR: 0.94 [95% CI: 0.52-1.70]), transient neurological deficit (TND) (OR: 1.37 [95% CI: 0.98-1.92]), renal failure (OR: 0.96 [95% CI: 0.70-1.32]), and re-exploration for bleeding (OR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.48-1.22]). Meta-regression analysis revealed that PND and TND were not influenced by differences in rates of total arch repair, Bentall procedure, and concomitant CABG in UACP and BACP groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass time (Standard Mean Difference [SMD]: -0.11 [95% CI: -0.22, 0.44]), Cross clamp time (SMD: -0.04 [95% CI: -0.38, 0.29]), and hypothermic circulatory arrest time (SMD: -0.12 [95% CI: -0.55, 0.30]) were comparable between UACP and BACP. Intensive care unit stay was shorter in BACP arm (SMD:0.16 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.31]); however, length of hospital stay was shorter in UACP arm (SMD: -0.25 [95% CI: -0.45, -0.06]). CONCLUSIONS: UACP and BACP had similar results in terms of in-hospital mortality, PND, TND, renal failure, and re-exploration for bleeding rate in patients with ATAAD. ICU stay was shorter in the BACP arm while LOS was shorter in the UACP arm.

Aortic valve neocuspidization using the Ozaki technique: A meta-analysis of reconstructed patient-level data.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve neocuspidization using the Ozaki technique has shown promising results both in adults and children. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed up to November 13, 2021. Individual patient data were reconstructed and analyzed from the Kaplan-Meier curves of all eligible studies for time-to-event outcomes. RESULTS: We included a total of 22 studies reporting on 1,891 patients that underwent Ozaki reconstruction. Mean age at the time of surgery was 43.2 ± 24.5 years (65 ± 12.3 years for adult patients and 12.3 ± 3.8 years for pediatric patients). The most common indication was aortic stenosis (46.4%, 95% CI 34.1-58.6). Mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass duration were 106.8 ± 24.8 minutes and 135.2 ± 35.1 minutes, respectively. Permanent pacemaker was implanted in 0.7% (95% CI 0.4-1.2) of the patients. At discharge, mean effective orifice area was 2.1 ± 0.5 cm2/m2. At latest follow-up, peak gradient was 15.7 ± 7.4 mm Hg and only 0.25% (95% CI 0-2.3) had moderate aortic insufficiency. In-hospital mortality was 0.7% (95% CI 0.1-1.7). Late mortality was 1.9% during a mean follow-up of 38.1 ± 23.8 months. One-year, 3-year, and 5-year freedom from reoperation rates were 98.0 %, 97.0 % and 96.5%, respectively. More than half of the reoperations were due to infective endocarditis (51.5%, 95% CI 18.3-84.0). In our cohort, the risk of endocarditis per patient per year was 0.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The midterm outcomes of the Ozaki procedure are excellent in terms of hemodynamics, survival, and freedom from reoperation. Acquiring long-term follow-up will help solidify this technique in the cardiac surgery armamentarium.

Robotic applications for intracardiac and endovascular procedures.

The large incisions and long recovery periods that accompany traditional cardiac surgery procedures along with the constant patient demand for minimally invasive procedures have motivated cardiac surgeons to implement the robotic technologies in their armamentarium. The robotic systems have been utilized successfully in various cardiac procedures including atrial septal defect repair, left atrial myxoma resection, MAZE procedure and left ventricular lead placement, yet coronary artery bypass and mitral valve repair still comprise the vast majority of them. This review analyzes the development of the robot-assisted cardiac surgery in recent years, its outcomes, advantages, disadvantages, its patient selection criteria as well as its economic feasibility. Robotic endovascular surgery, albeit its limited applications, is presently considered an attractive alternative to conventional endovascular approaches. The increased flexibility and precision along with the wider range of accessible anatomy provided by the endovascular robotic systems, have increased the pool of patients that can be offered minimally invasive treatment options and have helped to overcome many limitations of the traditional endovascular procedures. With this review we aimed to summarize the applications of the commercially available endovascular robotic devices, as well as the limitations and the future perspectives in the field of endovascular robotic surgery.

Long-term outcomes of total arch replacement versus proximal aortic replacement in acute type A aortic dissection: Meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of a conservative approach (with proximal aortic replacement with or without hemiarch replacement) versus an aggressive approach (with total aortic arch replacement) in the treatment of acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data from studies with follow-up comparing the aforementioned approaches to treat patients with ATAAD. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met our eligibility criteria, comprising 5243 patients with follow-up (Conservative: 3676 patients; Aggressive: 1567 patients). We observed a statistically significant difference in overall survival favoring the aggressive approach (hazard ratios [HR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.98, p = .022), but no statistically significant difference in the risk of reoperation (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66-1.2, p = .439) in the overall follow-up. Landmark analyses revealed that, in the first 3 months after the procedure, mortality rates were comparable between conservative and aggressive approaches (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88-1.24, p = .627), but the results beyond 3 months showed improved survival in patients undergoing the aggressive surgical procedure (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85, p < .001). The landmark analyses also revealed that, in the first 7 years after the procedure, reoperation rates were comparable between the approaches (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76-1.40, p = .848), but the results beyond 7 years showed a lower risk of reoperation in patients undergoing the aggressive surgical procedure (HR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01-0.75, p = .025). CONCLUSION: The aggressive approach seems to confer better long-term survival and lower risk of the need for reoperation in the follow-up of patients treated for ATAAD.

Renal outcomes in valve-in-valve transcatheter versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) and the requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT) remain common and significant complications of both transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Nevertheless, the understanding of renal outcomes in the population undergoing either redo SAVR or ViV-TAVR remains controversial. METHODS: A systematic database search with meta-analysis was conducted of comparative original articles of ViV-TAVR versus redo SAVR in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to September 2021. Primary outcomes were AKI and RRT. Secondary outcomes were stroke, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation rate, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Our search yielded 5435 relevant studies. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 11,198 patients. We found ViV-TAVR to be associated with lower rates of AKI, postoperative RRT, major bleeding, pacemaker implantation, operative mortality, and 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed in terms of stroke rate. The mean incidence of AKI in ViV-TAVR was 6.95% (±6%) and in redo SAVR was 15.2% (±9.6%). For RRT, our data showed that VIV-TAVR to be 1.48% (±1.46%) and redo SAVR to be 8.54% (±8.06%). CONCLUSION: Renoprotective strategies should be put into place to prevent and reduce AKI incidence regardless of the treatment modality. Patients undergoing re-intervention for the aortic valve constitute a high-risk and frail population in which ViV-TAVR demonstrated it might be a feasible option for carefully selected patients. Long-term follow-up data and randomized control trials will be needed to evaluate mortality and morbidity outcomes between these 2 treatments.

Immediate and late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in bicuspid valves: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis and bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) must be better investigated. METHODS: A meta-analysis including studies published by January 2022 reporting immediate outcomes (in-hospital death, stroke, acute kidney injury [AKI], major bleeding, new permanent pacemaker implantation [PPI], paravalvular leakage [PVL]), mortality in the follow-up (with Kaplan-Meier curves for reconstruction of individual patient data). RESULTS: Five studies met our eligibility criteria. No statistically significant difference was observed for in-hospital death, stroke, AKI, and PVL. TAVI was associated with lower risk of major bleeding (odds ratio [OR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12-0.69; p = .025), but higher risk of PPI (OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.05-3.77; p = .041). In the follow-up, mortality after TAVI was significantly higher in the analysis with the largest samples (HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.01-1.53, p = .043), but no statistically significant difference was observed with risk-adjusted populations (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.86-1.32, p = .57). Landmark analyses suggested a time-varying risk with TAVI after 10 and 13 months in both largest and risk-adjusted populations (HR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.45-3.12, p < .001; HR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.11-2.61, p = .015, respectively). CONCLUSION: Considering the immediate outcomes and comparable overall survival observed in risk-adjusted populations, TAVI can be used safely in selected BAV patients. However, a time-varying risk is present (favoring SAVR over TAVI at a later timepoint). This finding was likely driven by higher rates of PPI with TAVI.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in dialysis-dependent patients: A pooled meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data.

OBJECTIVE: Το perform a systematic review with meta-analysis of published data comparing outcomes between a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in dialysis-dependent patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies including dialysis-dependent patients who underwent either CABG or PCI. This meta-analysis follows the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. We conducted one-stage and two-stage meta-analysis with Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data for overall survival and meta-analysis with the random-effects model for the in-hospital mortality and repeat revascularization. RESULTS: Twelve studies met our eligibility criteria, including 13,651 and 28,493 patients were identified in the CABG and PCI arms, respectively. Patients who underwent CABG had overall improved survival compared with those who underwent PCI at the one-stage meta-analysis (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.16, p < .0001) and the two-stage meta-analysis (HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.08-1.23, p < .001, I2 = 30.0%). Landmark analysis suggested that PCI offers better survival before the 8.5 months of follow-up (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.92-0.99, p = .043), while CABG offers an advantage after this timepoint (HR: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.22-1.32, p < .001). CABG was associated with increased odds for in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.50-1.92, p < .001, I2 = 0.0%) and decreased odds for repeat revascularization (OR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.14-0.34, p < .001, I2 = 58.08%). CONCLUSIONS: In dialysis-dependent patients, CABG was associated with long-term survival but a higher risk for early mortality. The risk for repeat revascularization was higher with PCI.

Clopidogrel Monotherapy versus Aspirin Monotherapy in Patients with Established Cardiovascular Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no clear consensus on whether aspirin offers better outcomes in terms of secondary cardiovascular disease prevention compared with clopidogrel. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients with established cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases (last search date: August 28, 2021) was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement for randomized control trials (RCTs) of clopidogrel versus aspirin as monotherapy in patients with established cardiovascular disease. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Five RCTs incorporating 26,855 patients (clopidogrel: 13,426; aspirin: 13,429) were included. No statistically significant difference was observed between clopidogrel and aspirin in terms of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.01 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.91-1.13]; p = 0.83), ischemic stroke (OR: 0.87 [95% CI: 0.71-1.06]; p = 0.16), and major bleeding rates (OR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.56-1.06]; p = 0.11). Patients receiving clopidogrel had borderline lower risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.71-1.00]; p = 0.05) and lower risk for nonfatal myocardial infarction (OR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.71-0.97]; p = 0.02, relative risk reduction = 16.9%, absolute risk reduction = 0.5%, number needed to treat = 217 for a mean period of 20 months) compared with patients receiving aspirin. CONCLUSION: In patients with established cardiovascular disease, clopidogrel was associated with a 17% relative-risk reduction for nonfatal MI, borderline decreased risk for MACE, and similar risk for all-cause mortality, stroke, and major bleeding compared with aspirin. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021283866.

Interleukin-6 inhibitors reduce mortality in coronavirus disease-2019: An individual patient data meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of IL-6 inhibitors compared to standard of care (SOC) in COVID-19 patients. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of the MEDLINE and Scopus databases (last search: October 8th, 2021) was performed according to the PRISMA statement. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing IL-6 inhibitors to SOC in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were deemed eligible. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Individual patient data were extracted from the Kaplan-Meier curves or were obtained from authors of included studies. Additionally, the reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed study quality of each eligible report. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified, incorporating 7467 patients (IL-6 inhibitors: 4103, SOC: 3364). IL-6 inhibitors were associated with decreased risk for death compared to SOC at the one-stage meta-analysis (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% Confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-0.82, p<0.0001) and the two-stage meta-analysis (HR: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.77-0.93, p<0.001, I2 = 0.0%). Meta-regression analysis revealed that the difference in OS between the two groups was not influenced by the mean age of patients. At secondary meta-analyses, IL-6 inhibitors were associated with decreased odds for intubation OR:0.74, 95%CI:0.65-0.85, p<0.001, I2=0.0%). IL-6 inhibitors were associated with increased odds for discharge compared to SOC (OR:1.28, 95% CI:1.15-1.42, p<0.001, I2=0.0%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials shows that IL-6 inhibitors significantly reduce the risk of death compared to SOC. IL-6 inhibitors are also associated with better outcomes in terms of intubation and discharge rates compared to SOC.

Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve for aortic valve replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed individual participant data.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare biological versus mechanical aortic valve replacement. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials and propensity score-matched studies published by 14 October 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Individual patient data on overall survival were extracted. One- and two-stage survival analyses and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 25 studies were identified, incorporating 8721 bioprosthetic and 8962 mechanical valves. In the one-stage meta-analysis, mechanical valves cumulatively demonstrated decreased hazard for mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-0.84, P < 0.0001]. Overall survival was similar between the compared arms for patients <50 years old (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.71-1.1, P = 0.216), increased in the mechanical valve arm for patients 50-70 years old (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.70-0.83, P < 0.0001) and increased in the bioprosthetic arm for patients >70 years old (HR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.17-1.57, P < 0.0001). Meta-regression analysis revealed that the survival in the 50-70 year-old group was not influenced by the publication year of the individual studies. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding in-hospital mortality, postoperative strokes and postoperative reoperation. All-cause mortality was found decreased in the mechanical group, cardiac mortality was comparable between the 2 groups, major bleeding rates were increased in the mechanical valve group and reoperation rates were increased in the bioprosthetic valve group. CONCLUSIONS: Survival rates seem to not be influenced by the type of prosthesis in patients <50 years old. The survival advantage in favour of mechanical valves is observed in patients 50-70 years old, while in patients >70 years old bioprosthetic valves offer better survival outcomes.

Proximal versus extensive repair in acute type A aortic dissection: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of proximal repair (PR) versus extensive repair (ER) for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). METHODS: A literature search in three databases was performed according to the PRISMA statement. Studies comparing PR versus ER for ATAAD were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies incorporating 7113 patients (PR: 5080; ER: 2033) were included. Patients undergoing PR presented decreased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.67 [95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.53-0.85]; p < 0.01) and post-operative bleeding (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.60-0.95]; p = 0.02) compared to ER. Meta-regression analysis revealed that in-hospital mortality was not influenced by differences regarding the extent of dissection (p = 0.43). Cardiopulmonary bypass time (SMD:-0.93 [95% CI - 1.22, - 0.66]; p < 0.01) and length of hospital stay (SMD:-0.19 [95% CI - 0.34, - 0.05]; p = 0.01) were also lower in the PR group, while there was no difference in terms of renal failure and permanent neurological deficit. The ER approach demonstrated a lower post-discharge mortality compared to PR (OR 1.46 [95% CI 1.09, 1.97]; p = 0.01), while the post-discharge reoperation rate was comparable between the two groups. 1 and 3-year overall survival (OS) were comparable between PR and ER (OR 1.05, [95% CI 0.77-1.44]; p = 0.76) and (OR 1.27 [95% CI 0.86-1.86]; p = 0.23), respectively. The 5-year OS (OR 1.67 [95% CI 1.16-2.41]; p = 0.01) was in favor of the PR arm. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ATAAD, PR was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality but higher odds of late mortality. ER and PR demonstrated similar post-operative complication and reoperation rates.

Liver Transplantation for Hepatic Adenoma: A UNOS Database Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) has been employed for hepatic adenoma (HA) on a case-oriented basis. We aimed to describe the characteristics, waitlist, and post-LT outcomes of patients requiring LT for HA. METHODS: All patients listed or transplanted for HA in the United States were identified in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database (1987-2020). A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. RESULTS: A total of 199 HA patients were listed for LT in UNOS and the crude waitlist mortality was 9.0%. A total of 142 HA patients underwent LT; 118 of these were among those listed with an indication of HA who underwent LT, and 24 were diagnosed incidentally. Most did not experience hepatocellular carcinoma transformation (89.4%). Over a median follow-up of 62.9 mo, death was reported in 18.3%. The 1-, 3-, and 5-y patient survival rates were 94.2%, 89.7%, and 86.3% in the UNOS cohort. The systematic review yielded 61 articles reporting on 99 nonoverlapping patients undergoing LT for HA and 2 articles reporting on multicenter studies. The most common LT indications were suspected malignancy (39.7%), unresectable HA (31.7%), and increasing size (27.0%), whereas 53.1% had glycogen storage disease. Over a median follow-up of 36.5 mo, death was reported in 6.0% (n=5/84). The 1-, 3-, and 5-y patient survival rates were all 95.0% in the systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: LT for HA can lead to excellent long-term outcomes in well-selected patients. Prospective granular data are needed to develop more optimal selection criteria and further improve outcomes.

Role of liver transplantation in the management of colorectal liver metastases: Challenges and opportunities.

The liver is the most common site of colorectal cancer metastasis. Complete resection of the metastatic tumor is currently the only treatment modality available with a potential for cure. However, only 20% of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are considered resectable at the time of presentation. Liver transplantation (LT) has been proposed as an alternative oncologic treatment for patients with unresectable CRLM. This review summarizes the published experiences of LT in the setting of unresectable CRLM from the previous decades and discusses the challenges and future horizons in the field. Contemporary experiences that come mostly from countries with broader access to liver grafts are also explored and their promising findings in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) are outlined along with their study design and methods. The rationale of establishing specific patient selection criteria and the dilemmas around immunosuppressive regimens in patients undergoing LT for CRLM are also highlighted. Additionally, this review describes the findings of studies comparing LT vs chemotherapy alone and LT vs portal vein embolization plus resection for CRLM in terms of OS and DFS. Last but not least, we present current perspectives and ongoing prospective trials that try to elucidate the role of LT for CRLM.