RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Acute heart failure (AHF) is a leading cause of unplanned hospitalization often associated with poor outcomes. Decongestion with intravenous loop diuretics is the mainstay of treatment. Metrics such as door-to-diuretic time, the time between presentation of AHF to the hospital and administration of intravenous diuretics, may play an important role in faster decongestion and thereby reduce mortality. We sought to investigate whether early diuretic administration (door-to-diuretic [D2D] time 60≤mins) was associated with improved outcomes among hospitalized HF patients. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases was performed from inception until June, 2023. The primary endpoints were all cause in hospital and 30-day mortality. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay and heart failure readmission. We used a random-effects model to calculate odds ratios (OR) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous data. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis included 6 observational studies involving 19,916 patients. No significant differences (p>0.05) were observed between shorter D2D and delayed D2D time with respect to in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.35-1.09), 30-day mortality (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.51-1.33; P=0.44), length of hospital stay (MD: -0.02; 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.22) and HF readmission (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.86-1.20). CONCLUSION: Evidence from existing literature, which is largely limited to observational comparisons, highlights comparable outcomes between the two treatment strategies. Early diuretic administration, particularly within 60 minutes of hospital presentation, does not demonstrate any prognostic benefits.
RESUMO
Background: The heightened morbidity and mortality associated with repeat cardiac surgery are well documented. Redo median sternotomy (MS) and minimally invasive valve surgery are options for patients with prior cardiac surgery who require mitral valve surgery (MVS). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of redo MS and minimally invasive MVS (MIMVS) in this population. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus for studies comparing outcomes of redo MS and MIMVS for MVS. To calculate risk ratios (RRs) for binary outcomes and weighted mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, we employed a random-effects model. Results: We included 12 retrospective observational studies, comprising 4157 participants (675 for MIMVS; 3482 for redo MS). Reductions in mortality (RR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.80), length of hospital stay (MD, -4.23; 95% CI, -5.77 to -2.68), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD, -2.02; 95% CI, -3.17 to -0.88), and new-onset acute kidney injury (AKI) risk (odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.61) were statistically significant and favored MIMVS (p<0.05). No significant differences were observed in aortic cross-clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time, or risk of perioperative stroke, new-onset atrial fibrillation, surgical site infection, or reoperation for bleeding (p>0.05). Conclusion: The current literature, which primarily consists of retrospective comparisons, underscores certain benefits of MIMVS over redo MS. These include decreased mortality, shorter hospital and ICU stays, and reduced AKI risk. Given the lack of high-quality evidence, prospective randomized control trials with adequate power are necessary to investigate long-term outcomes.