微创与完全胸骨切开术再植入术保留主动脉根部置换术:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1 Q4 Medicine
Kristine Santos, Mislav Planinc
{"title":"微创与完全胸骨切开术再植入术保留主动脉根部置换术:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Kristine Santos, Mislav Planinc","doi":"10.5090/jcs.25.029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite growing interest, comparative data on the minimally invasive David procedure (MI-DP) versus the traditional complete sternotomy approach (CS-DP) remain scarce, largely due to the inherent complexity of the operation. The present meta-analysis compared the perioperative outcomes of MI-DP and CS-DP. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing MI-DP and CS-DP. Pooled odds ratios and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using RevMan ver. 8.13.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration). A subgroup analysis of exclusively propensity-matched data was also performed. Seven studies comprising 1,124 patients were included, with 394 (35%) in the MI-DP group. MI-DP was associated with reduced blood loss (MD, -123.1 mL; 95% CI, -150.1 to -96.1 mL; p<0.0001), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD, -0.5 days; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.4 days; p<0.00001), and hospital stay (MD, -2.8 days; 95% CI, -4.9 to -0.7 days; p=0.01), albeit with a longer cross-clamp time (MD, 13.3 minutes; 95% CI, 2.8 to 23.9 minutes; p=0.01). Thirty-day mortality and complications, including neurological deficits and reoperation for bleeding, were similar between groups. The subgroup analysis restricted to propensity-matched data confirmed these benefits and revealed additional reductions in mechanical ventilation time (MD, -6.3 hours; 95% CI, -7.2 to -5.4 hours; p<0.00001) and red blood cell transfusion requirements (MD, -85.6 mL; 95% CI, -114.6 to -56.5 mL; p<0.00001). MI-DP offers reduced ventilation time, blood loss, and ICU and hospital stays without compromising safety. However, our findings should be interpreted cautiously pending validation by future prospective studies (PROSPERO CRD42025631006).</p>","PeriodicalId":34499,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Chest Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimally Invasive versus Complete Sternotomy for Reimplantation Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Kristine Santos, Mislav Planinc\",\"doi\":\"10.5090/jcs.25.029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite growing interest, comparative data on the minimally invasive David procedure (MI-DP) versus the traditional complete sternotomy approach (CS-DP) remain scarce, largely due to the inherent complexity of the operation. The present meta-analysis compared the perioperative outcomes of MI-DP and CS-DP. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing MI-DP and CS-DP. Pooled odds ratios and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using RevMan ver. 8.13.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration). A subgroup analysis of exclusively propensity-matched data was also performed. Seven studies comprising 1,124 patients were included, with 394 (35%) in the MI-DP group. MI-DP was associated with reduced blood loss (MD, -123.1 mL; 95% CI, -150.1 to -96.1 mL; p<0.0001), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD, -0.5 days; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.4 days; p<0.00001), and hospital stay (MD, -2.8 days; 95% CI, -4.9 to -0.7 days; p=0.01), albeit with a longer cross-clamp time (MD, 13.3 minutes; 95% CI, 2.8 to 23.9 minutes; p=0.01). Thirty-day mortality and complications, including neurological deficits and reoperation for bleeding, were similar between groups. The subgroup analysis restricted to propensity-matched data confirmed these benefits and revealed additional reductions in mechanical ventilation time (MD, -6.3 hours; 95% CI, -7.2 to -5.4 hours; p<0.00001) and red blood cell transfusion requirements (MD, -85.6 mL; 95% CI, -114.6 to -56.5 mL; p<0.00001). MI-DP offers reduced ventilation time, blood loss, and ICU and hospital stays without compromising safety. However, our findings should be interpreted cautiously pending validation by future prospective studies (PROSPERO CRD42025631006).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34499,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Chest Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Chest Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5090/jcs.25.029\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Chest Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5090/jcs.25.029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管越来越多的人对微创David手术(MI-DP)与传统的完全胸骨切开术(CS-DP)进行比较的数据仍然很少,这主要是由于手术固有的复杂性。本荟萃分析比较了MI-DP和CS-DP的围手术期结果。我们系统地检索了MEDLINE、Scopus和Cochrane Library以比较MI-DP和CS-DP的研究。使用RevMan ver计算合并优势比和95%置信区间的平均差异(md)。8.13.0 (Cochrane Collaboration)。还进行了完全倾向匹配数据的亚组分析。纳入7项研究,包括1124例患者,其中394例(35%)为MI-DP组。MI-DP与出血量减少相关(MD, -123.1 mL; 95% CI, -150.1至-96.1 mL; p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Minimally Invasive versus Complete Sternotomy for Reimplantation Valve-Sparing Aortic Root Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Despite growing interest, comparative data on the minimally invasive David procedure (MI-DP) versus the traditional complete sternotomy approach (CS-DP) remain scarce, largely due to the inherent complexity of the operation. The present meta-analysis compared the perioperative outcomes of MI-DP and CS-DP. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing MI-DP and CS-DP. Pooled odds ratios and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using RevMan ver. 8.13.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration). A subgroup analysis of exclusively propensity-matched data was also performed. Seven studies comprising 1,124 patients were included, with 394 (35%) in the MI-DP group. MI-DP was associated with reduced blood loss (MD, -123.1 mL; 95% CI, -150.1 to -96.1 mL; p<0.0001), intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD, -0.5 days; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.4 days; p<0.00001), and hospital stay (MD, -2.8 days; 95% CI, -4.9 to -0.7 days; p=0.01), albeit with a longer cross-clamp time (MD, 13.3 minutes; 95% CI, 2.8 to 23.9 minutes; p=0.01). Thirty-day mortality and complications, including neurological deficits and reoperation for bleeding, were similar between groups. The subgroup analysis restricted to propensity-matched data confirmed these benefits and revealed additional reductions in mechanical ventilation time (MD, -6.3 hours; 95% CI, -7.2 to -5.4 hours; p<0.00001) and red blood cell transfusion requirements (MD, -85.6 mL; 95% CI, -114.6 to -56.5 mL; p<0.00001). MI-DP offers reduced ventilation time, blood loss, and ICU and hospital stays without compromising safety. However, our findings should be interpreted cautiously pending validation by future prospective studies (PROSPERO CRD42025631006).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Chest Surgery
Journal of Chest Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
76
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
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