Mohamed A. S. Aramin, Shadi Abuhashem, Khalid Jamal Faris, Belal M. M. Omar, Mohd Burhanuddin, Puli Sai Teja, Mark Ibraheim
{"title":"Surgical closure versus transcatheter closure for ventricular septal defect post infarction, a meta-analysis","authors":"Mohamed A. S. Aramin, Shadi Abuhashem, Khalid Jamal Faris, Belal M. M. Omar, Mohd Burhanuddin, Puli Sai Teja, Mark Ibraheim","doi":"10.1097/ms9.0000000000002294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Surgical correction of post-infarct ventricular septal defect (PIVSD) is associated with a significant incidence of morbidity and mortality. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical versus transcatheter approaches in the management of PIVSD.\n \n \n \n A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective from five databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid, and Scopus) until 9 March 2024 was conducted. Risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes was used and data with a 95% confidence interval (CI) are presented.\n \n \n \n A total of 7 retrospective observational studies with 603 patients were included in the analysis. surgical closure was associated with a significantly lower short-term mortality and lower number of residual shunt or reintervention rate compared to percutaneous closure, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.21 (95% confidence interval (CI):1:00 to 1.46, P = 0.05) and 2.68 (95% confidence interval: 1.46 to 4.91, P = 0.001) respectively. surgical closure was associated with a non-significantly lower long-term mortality rate compared to percutaneous closure, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.10 (95% confidence interval: 0.82 to1.48, P = 0.52). No difference is reported when time from AMI or PIVSD to intervention is compared groups, with a relative risk (RR) of -0.24 (95% confidence interval: -4.49 to 4.2, P = 0.91).\n \n \n \n Our meta-analysis shied the light on the significance of surgical closure in terms of short-term mortality and need for re-intervention. However, no significant difference was observed in term of long-term mortality and time to intervention.\n","PeriodicalId":503882,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Medicine & Surgery","volume":"139 14","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Medicine & Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ms9.0000000000002294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Surgical correction of post-infarct ventricular septal defect (PIVSD) is associated with a significant incidence of morbidity and mortality. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of surgical versus transcatheter approaches in the management of PIVSD.
A systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective from five databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid, and Scopus) until 9 March 2024 was conducted. Risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes was used and data with a 95% confidence interval (CI) are presented.
A total of 7 retrospective observational studies with 603 patients were included in the analysis. surgical closure was associated with a significantly lower short-term mortality and lower number of residual shunt or reintervention rate compared to percutaneous closure, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.21 (95% confidence interval (CI):1:00 to 1.46, P = 0.05) and 2.68 (95% confidence interval: 1.46 to 4.91, P = 0.001) respectively. surgical closure was associated with a non-significantly lower long-term mortality rate compared to percutaneous closure, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.10 (95% confidence interval: 0.82 to1.48, P = 0.52). No difference is reported when time from AMI or PIVSD to intervention is compared groups, with a relative risk (RR) of -0.24 (95% confidence interval: -4.49 to 4.2, P = 0.91).
Our meta-analysis shied the light on the significance of surgical closure in terms of short-term mortality and need for re-intervention. However, no significant difference was observed in term of long-term mortality and time to intervention.