Patency of skeletonized versus pedicled internal thoracic artery in coronary bypass graft surgery: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: It is suggested that the skeletonization harvesting technique influences the patency rates of internal thoracic artery (ITA) after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in comparison to conventional (pedicled) harvesting. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether there is any difference between skeletonized versus pedicled ITA in terms of patency after CABG. METHODS: We performed a systematic-review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles to search for studies that performed angiographic evaluation within the first two years after CABG between these two groups until December 2013. The principal summary measures were odds ratio (OR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and P values (statistically significant when <0.05). The OR's were combined across studies using weighted DerSimonian-Laird random effects model and weighted Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects. Meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were completed using the software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, New Jersey). RESULTS: Five studies involving 1764 evaluated conduits (1145 skeletonized; 619 pedicled) met the eligibility criteria. There was no evidence for important heterogeneity of effects among the studies. The overall OR (95% CI) for graft occlusion showed no statistical significant difference between groups (fixed effect model: OR 1.351, 95% CI 0.408 to 4.471, P = 0.801; random effect model: OR 1.351, 95% CI 0.408 to 4.471, P = 0.801). In sensitivity analysis, no difference regarding to left or right ITA was also observed. In meta-regression, we observed no statistically significant coefficients for graft occlusion and proportion of female, diabetics, renal failure, age, off-pump surgery or urgency, which means that the effect is not modulated by these factors. CONCLUSION: In terms of patency, skeletonized ITA appears to be non-inferior in comparison to pedicled ITA after CABG.

Meta-analysis of 5,674 patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and drug-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass graft surgery for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for clinical studies that reported outcomes at the 1-year follow-up after PCI with DES and CABG for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis. Sixteen studies (three randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies) were identified and included a total of 5674 patients (2331 for PCI with DES and 3343 for CABG). RESULTS: At the 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference between the CABG and DES groups in the risk for death (odds ratio [OR] 0.691, P = 0.051) or the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or stroke (OR 0.832, P = 0.258). The risk for target vessel revascularization (TVR) was significantly higher in the PCI group compared with the CABG group (OR 3.597, P < 0.001). The risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was significantly higher in the PCI group compared with the CABG group (OR 1.607, P < 0.001). A publication bias was observed regarding the outcome of death and also a considerable heterogeneity effect on the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or stroke and MACCE. CONCLUSIONS: CABG surgery remains the best option of treatment for patients with ULMCA disease, with less need of TVR and lower MACCE rates.

Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 13,524 patients from randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Most recent published meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) reduces incidence of stroke by 30% compared with on-pump CABG, but showed no difference in other outcomes. New RCTs were published, indicating need of new meta-analysis to investigate pooled results adding these further studies. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for RCTs that compared outcomes (30-day mortality for all-cause, myocardial infarction or stroke) between off-pump versus on-pump CABG until May 2012. The principal summary measures were relative risk (RR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and P values (considered statistically significant when <0.05). The RR's were combined across studies using DerSimonian-Laird random effects weighted model. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were completed using the software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, New Jersey, USA). RESULTS: Forty-seven RCTs were identified and included 13,524 patients (6,758 for off-pump and 6,766 for on-pump CABG). There was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG groups in RR for 30-day mortality or myocardial infarction, but there was difference about stroke in favor to off-pump CABG (RR 0.793, 95% CI 0.660-0.920, P=0.049). It was observed no important heterogeneity of effects about any outcome, but it was observed publication bias about outcome "stroke". Meta-regression did not demonstrate influence of female gender, number of grafts or age in outcomes. CONCLUSION: Off-pump CABG reduces the incidence of post-operative stroke by 20.7% and has no substantial effect on mortality or myocardial infarction in comparison to on-pump CABG. Patient gender, number of grafts performed and age do not seem to explain the effect of off-pump CABG on mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke, respectively.

Preservation versus non-preservation of mitral valve apparatus during mitral valve replacement: a meta-analysis of 3835 patients.

Resection of the chordopapillary apparatus during mitral valve replacement has been associated with a negative impact on survival. Mitral valve replacement with the preservation of the mitral valve apparatus has been associated with better outcomes, but surgeons remain refractory to its use. To determine if there is any real difference in preservation vs non-preservation of mitral valve apparatus during mitral valve replacement in terms of outcomes, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles to search for clinical studies that compared outcomes (30-day mortality, postoperative low cardiac output syndrome or 5-year mortality) between preservation vs non-preservation during mitral valve replacement from 1966 to 2011. The principal summary measures were odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval and P-values (that will be considered statistically significant when <0.05). The ORs were combined across studies using a weighted DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. The meta-analysis was completed using the software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA). Twenty studies (3 randomized and 17 non-randomized) were identified and included a total of 3835 patients (1918 for mitral valve replacement preservation and 1917 for mitral valve replacement non-preservation). There was significant difference between mitral valve replacement preservation and mitral valve replacement non-preservation groups in the risk of 30-day mortality (OR 0.418, P <0.001), postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (OR 0.299, P <0.001) or 5-year mortality (OR 0.380, P <0.001). No publication bias or important heterogeneity of effects on any outcome was observed. In conclusion, we found evidence that argues in favour of the preservation of mitral valve apparatus during mitral valve replacement.

Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 13,524 patients from randomized trials / Cirurgia de revascularização miocárdica com CEC versus sem CEC: meta-análise e meta-regressão de 13.524 pacientes de estudos randomizados

BACKGROUND: Most recent published meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) reduces incidence of stroke by 30% compared with on-pump CABG, but showed no difference in other outcomes. New RCTs were published, indicating need of new meta-analysis to investigate pooled results adding these further studies. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for RCTs that compared outcomes (30-day mortality for all-cause, myocardial infarction or stroke) between off-pump versus on-pump CABG until May 2012. The principal summary measures were relative risk (RR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and P values (considered statistically significant when <0.05). The RR's were combined across studies using DerSimonian-Laird random effects weighted model. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were completed using the software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, New Jersey, USA). RESULTS: Forty-seven RCTs were identified and included 13,524 patients (6,758 for off-pump and 6,766 for on-pump CABG). There was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG groups in RR for 30-day mortality or myocardial infarction, but there was difference about stroke in favor to off-pump CABG (RR 0.793, 95% CI 0.660-0.920, P=0.049). It was observed no important heterogeneity of effects about any outcome, but it was observed publication bias about outcome "stroke". Meta-regression did not demonstrate influence of female gender, number of grafts or age in outcomes. CONCLUSION: Off-pump CABG reduces the incidence of post-operative stroke by 20.7% and has no substantial effect on mortality or myocardial infarction in comparison to on-pump CABG. Patient gender, number of grafts performed and age do not seem to explain the effect of off-pump CABG on mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke, respectively.

INTRODUÇÃO: A meta-análise mais recente de estudos randomizados controlados (ERC) mostrou que cirurgia de revascularização (CRM) sem circulação extracorpórea (CEC) reduz a incidência de acidente vascular cerebral em 30% em comparação com CRM com CEC, mas não mostrou diferença em outros resultados. Novos ERCs foram publicados, indicando necessidade de nova meta-análise para investigar resultados agrupados adicionando esses estudos. MÉTODOS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL / CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar e listas de referências de artigos relevantes foram pesquisados para ERCs que compararam os resultados de 30 dias (mortalidade por todas as causas, infarto do miocárdio ou acidente vascular cerebral - AVC) entre CRM com CEC versus sem CEC até maio de 2012. As medidas sumárias principais foram o risco relativo (RR) com intervalo de confiança de 95% (IC) e os valores de P (considerado estatisticamente significativo quando <0,05). Os RR foram combinados entre os estudos usando modelo de efeito randômico de DerSimonian-Laird. Meta-análise e meta-regressão foram concluídas usando o software versão Meta-Análise Abrangente 2 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, Nova Jersey, EUA). RESULTADOS: Quarenta e sete ERCs foram identificados e incluíram 13.524 pacientes (6.758 sem CEC e 6.766 com CEC). Não houve diferença significativa entre CRM com CEC e sem CEC no RR de mortalidade em 30 dias ou infarto do miocárdio, mas houve diferença em favor da CRM sem CEC no desfecho AVC (RR 0,793, IC 95% 0,660-0,920, P = 0,049). Não foi observado importante heterogeneidade dos efeitos sobre qualquer resultado, mas observou-se um viés de publicação sobre o desfecho "AVC". Meta-regressão não demonstrou influência do sexo feminino, o número de pontes ou idade nos resultados. CONCLUSÃO: CRM sem uso da CEC reduz a incidência de acidente vascular cerebral pós-operatória de 20,7% e não tem efeito significativo sobre a mortalidade ou infarto do miocárdio em comparação com CRM com CEC. Sexo do paciente, número de enxertos realizados e idade não parecem explicar o efeito de RM sem CEC sobre a mortalidade, infarto do miocárdio ou acidente vascular cerebral, respectivamente.