Surgical Ablation by a Right Mini-thoracotomy Versus a Median Sternotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies.

0 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Leo Consoli, Francisco Javier Nino Gonzalez, Henri Bartolozzi, Namira Mohammed Ali, Oluwaseun Fagbamila, Massimo Baudo
{"title":"Surgical Ablation by a Right Mini-thoracotomy Versus a Median Sternotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies.","authors":"Leo Consoli, Francisco Javier Nino Gonzalez, Henri Bartolozzi, Namira Mohammed Ali, Oluwaseun Fagbamila, Massimo Baudo","doi":"10.1093/icvts/ivaf178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>A minimally invasive approach by a right mini-thoracotomy has been developed for surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. However, the efficacy and safety compared to a median sternotomy remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies. Meta-analysis was performed for primary (recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias at 1 and 2 years) and secondary (hospital and ICU stay, adverse events, 30-day mortality, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic cross-clamp time) end-points. We compared end-points using risk ratio (RR) for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous ones. We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used the random-effects model for all outcomes. We performed subgroup analysis for the main outcome based on lesion set, energy source, type of surgery, and propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 12 observational studies (n = 3122). No difference was found for the primary outcome at 1 (RR 0.8; [95% CI]: 0.62-1.03; P = 0.08) and 2 years (RR 0.9; [95% CI]: 0.74-1.13; P = 0.4). The thoracotomy group had lower complications (RR 0.72; [95% CI]: 0.55-0.97; P = 0.016), 30-day mortality (OR 0.26; [95% CI]: 0.10-0.70; P = 0.007), hospital stay (MD -5.35; [95% CI]: -7.94 to 2.77; P < 0.001), and ICU stay (MD -2.21; [95% CI]: -3.02 to 1.40; P < 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic clamping time were significantly higher in the thoracotomy group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This meta-analysis found that surgical ablation by a mini-thoracotomy might achieve similar rhythm control to a median sternotomy while possibly improving safety and promoting faster recovery. However, conclusions are limited by the observational nature of the evidence and randomized trials are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":73406,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12343086/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivaf178","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: A minimally invasive approach by a right mini-thoracotomy has been developed for surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. However, the efficacy and safety compared to a median sternotomy remains unclear.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies. Meta-analysis was performed for primary (recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias at 1 and 2 years) and secondary (hospital and ICU stay, adverse events, 30-day mortality, cardiopulmonary bypass, and aortic cross-clamp time) end-points. We compared end-points using risk ratio (RR) for binary outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous ones. We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used the random-effects model for all outcomes. We performed subgroup analysis for the main outcome based on lesion set, energy source, type of surgery, and propensity score matching.

Results: We included 12 observational studies (n = 3122). No difference was found for the primary outcome at 1 (RR 0.8; [95% CI]: 0.62-1.03; P = 0.08) and 2 years (RR 0.9; [95% CI]: 0.74-1.13; P = 0.4). The thoracotomy group had lower complications (RR 0.72; [95% CI]: 0.55-0.97; P = 0.016), 30-day mortality (OR 0.26; [95% CI]: 0.10-0.70; P = 0.007), hospital stay (MD -5.35; [95% CI]: -7.94 to 2.77; P < 0.001), and ICU stay (MD -2.21; [95% CI]: -3.02 to 1.40; P < 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic clamping time were significantly higher in the thoracotomy group.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis found that surgical ablation by a mini-thoracotomy might achieve similar rhythm control to a median sternotomy while possibly improving safety and promoting faster recovery. However, conclusions are limited by the observational nature of the evidence and randomized trials are warranted.

右小胸切开术与正中胸骨切开术的手术消融:观察性研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:采用右小开胸微创方法治疗心房颤动。然而,与正中胸骨切开术相比,其疗效和安全性尚不清楚。方法:检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆,寻找符合条件的研究。对主要终点(1年和2年房性心动过速复发)和次要终点(住院和ICU住院时间、不良事件、30天死亡率、体外循环和主动脉交叉夹持时间)进行meta分析。我们用风险比(RR)比较二元结局的终点,用平均差(MD)比较连续结局的终点。我们计算95%置信区间(CI),并对所有结果使用随机效应模型。我们根据病变组、能量来源、手术类型和倾向评分匹配对主要结果进行亚组分析。结果:我们纳入了12项观察性研究(n = 3122)。主要转归无差异,为1 (RR 0.8;[95% ci]: 0.62-1.03;p = 0.08)和2年(RR 0.9;[95% ci]: 0.74-1.13;p = 0.4)。开胸组并发症发生率较低(RR 0.72;[95% ci]: 0.55-0.97;p = 0.016), 30天死亡率(OR 0.26;[95% ci]: 0.10-0.70;p = 0.007)、住院时间(MD -5.35;[95% ci]: -7.94-2.77;结论:本荟萃分析发现,小开胸手术消融可能达到与胸骨正中切口相似的节律控制,同时可能提高安全性并促进更快的恢复。然而,结论受到证据的观察性和随机试验的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信