不同微创主动脉瓣置换术的比较研究:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。

0 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Theresia Feline Husen, Ananda Pipphali Vidya, Samuel Heuts, Alfian Prasetyo, Aqilla Katrita Zaira Nugroho, Roberto Lorusso, Elham Bidar, Bart Maesen, Peyman Sardari Nia
{"title":"不同微创主动脉瓣置换术的比较研究:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Theresia Feline Husen, Ananda Pipphali Vidya, Samuel Heuts, Alfian Prasetyo, Aqilla Katrita Zaira Nugroho, Roberto Lorusso, Elham Bidar, Bart Maesen, Peyman Sardari Nia","doi":"10.1093/icvts/ivaf244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This investigation aimed to compare different minimally invasive techniques namely, mini-sternotomy (MS), mini-thoracotomy (MT), and totally thoracoscopic (TT) approaches for the surgical treatment of aortic valve disease, emphasizing their respective benefits and limitations to guide clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Wiley Online Library, Google Scholar, and ProQuest. Studies were appraised using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A frequentist network meta-analysis with a random-effects model was employed to give reflective ranks and compare outcomes across techniques. Treatment ranking was based on p-scores, with mini-sternotomy as the reference. Higher p-scores indicate greater certainty of superiority over competing interventions. The primary outcome was mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five observational studies (n = 34,573 patients) were included. Mortality did not differ between techniques [p-score: MS (0.85) ∼ MT (0.34) ∼ TT (0.31)]. TT had longer cardiopulmonary bypass [Mean difference (MD): 41.04 (95% CI: 10.98; 71.10)] and cross-clamp times [MD: 30.31 (95% CI: 5.81; 54.80)] but offered the shortest intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay [p-score: TT (0.98) > MT (0.51) > MS (0.01); MD: -16.00 (95% CI: -26.62; -5.38)], reduced hospital stay [MD: -2.07 (95% CI: -3.77; -0.37)], and fewer complications, including neurological events [Odds ratio (OR): 1.79 (95% CI: 1.03; 3.13)], blood loss [MD: 208.85 mL (95% CI: 102.29; 315.40)] compared to MS. MT showed similar outcomes to MS, except for longer operative times [MD: 29.84 (95% CI: 8.35; 51.32)] and shorter ICU stays [MD: -5.88 (95% CI: -11.10; -0.67)].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TT may offer advantages such as shorter hospital stays, reduced neurological complications, and less bleeding as compared to MS, although it is associated with longer operative times. However, as all included studies were observational, the findings should be interpreted with caution, and further NMA including only randomized trials are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":73406,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study of different minimally invasive aortic valve replacement techniques: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Theresia Feline Husen, Ananda Pipphali Vidya, Samuel Heuts, Alfian Prasetyo, Aqilla Katrita Zaira Nugroho, Roberto Lorusso, Elham Bidar, Bart Maesen, Peyman Sardari Nia\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/icvts/ivaf244\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This investigation aimed to compare different minimally invasive techniques namely, mini-sternotomy (MS), mini-thoracotomy (MT), and totally thoracoscopic (TT) approaches for the surgical treatment of aortic valve disease, emphasizing their respective benefits and limitations to guide clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Wiley Online Library, Google Scholar, and ProQuest. Studies were appraised using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A frequentist network meta-analysis with a random-effects model was employed to give reflective ranks and compare outcomes across techniques. Treatment ranking was based on p-scores, with mini-sternotomy as the reference. Higher p-scores indicate greater certainty of superiority over competing interventions. The primary outcome was mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five observational studies (n = 34,573 patients) were included. Mortality did not differ between techniques [p-score: MS (0.85) ∼ MT (0.34) ∼ TT (0.31)]. TT had longer cardiopulmonary bypass [Mean difference (MD): 41.04 (95% CI: 10.98; 71.10)] and cross-clamp times [MD: 30.31 (95% CI: 5.81; 54.80)] but offered the shortest intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay [p-score: TT (0.98) > MT (0.51) > MS (0.01); MD: -16.00 (95% CI: -26.62; -5.38)], reduced hospital stay [MD: -2.07 (95% CI: -3.77; -0.37)], and fewer complications, including neurological events [Odds ratio (OR): 1.79 (95% CI: 1.03; 3.13)], blood loss [MD: 208.85 mL (95% CI: 102.29; 315.40)] compared to MS. MT showed similar outcomes to MS, except for longer operative times [MD: 29.84 (95% CI: 8.35; 51.32)] and shorter ICU stays [MD: -5.88 (95% CI: -11.10; -0.67)].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>TT may offer advantages such as shorter hospital stays, reduced neurological complications, and less bleeding as compared to MS, although it is associated with longer operative times. However, as all included studies were observational, the findings should be interpreted with caution, and further NMA including only randomized trials are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivaf244\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivaf244","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

摘要

目的:本研究旨在比较小胸骨切开术(MS)、小胸切开术(MT)和全胸腔镜(TT)手术治疗主动脉瓣疾病的不同微创技术,强调其各自的优点和局限性,以指导临床决策。方法:系统检索Medline、Web of Science、Scopus、Wiley Online Library、谷歌Scholar、ProQuest等数据库。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表对研究进行评价。采用随机效应模型的频率网络元分析来给出反映等级并比较不同技术的结果。以小胸骨切开术为参照,以p-评分为治疗分级。p值越高,表明相对于竞争性干预措施的优势确定性越大。主要结局是死亡率。结果:纳入25项观察性研究(n = 34,573例患者)。不同技术之间的死亡率没有差异[p-score: MS (0.85) ~ MT (0.34) ~ TT(0.31)]。TT有较长的体外循环[平均差值(MD): 41.04 (95% CI: 10.98; 71.10)]和交叉钳夹次数[MD: 30.31 (95% CI: 5.81; 54.80)],但提供了最短的重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间[p-score: TT (0.98) > MT (0.51) > MS (0.01);MD: -16.00 (95% CI: -26.62; -5.38)),住院时间减少[MD: -2.07 (95% CI: -3.77; -0.37)],并发症减少,包括神经事件[优势比(OR): 1.79 (95% CI: 1.03; 3.13)],失血[MD: 208.85 mL (95% CI: 102.29; 315.40)]与MS相比,MT的结果与MS相似,但手术时间更长[MD: 29.84 (95% CI: 8.35; 51.32)]和ICU住院时间更短[MD: -5.88 (95% CI: -11.10; -0.67)]。结论:与多发性硬化症相比,TT可能具有诸如缩短住院时间、减少神经系统并发症和减少出血等优势,尽管它与较长的手术时间相关。然而,由于所有纳入的研究都是观察性的,研究结果应谨慎解释,并且仅包括随机试验的进一步NMA是有必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative study of different minimally invasive aortic valve replacement techniques: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Objectives: This investigation aimed to compare different minimally invasive techniques namely, mini-sternotomy (MS), mini-thoracotomy (MT), and totally thoracoscopic (TT) approaches for the surgical treatment of aortic valve disease, emphasizing their respective benefits and limitations to guide clinical decision-making.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Wiley Online Library, Google Scholar, and ProQuest. Studies were appraised using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A frequentist network meta-analysis with a random-effects model was employed to give reflective ranks and compare outcomes across techniques. Treatment ranking was based on p-scores, with mini-sternotomy as the reference. Higher p-scores indicate greater certainty of superiority over competing interventions. The primary outcome was mortality.

Results: Twenty-five observational studies (n = 34,573 patients) were included. Mortality did not differ between techniques [p-score: MS (0.85) ∼ MT (0.34) ∼ TT (0.31)]. TT had longer cardiopulmonary bypass [Mean difference (MD): 41.04 (95% CI: 10.98; 71.10)] and cross-clamp times [MD: 30.31 (95% CI: 5.81; 54.80)] but offered the shortest intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay [p-score: TT (0.98) > MT (0.51) > MS (0.01); MD: -16.00 (95% CI: -26.62; -5.38)], reduced hospital stay [MD: -2.07 (95% CI: -3.77; -0.37)], and fewer complications, including neurological events [Odds ratio (OR): 1.79 (95% CI: 1.03; 3.13)], blood loss [MD: 208.85 mL (95% CI: 102.29; 315.40)] compared to MS. MT showed similar outcomes to MS, except for longer operative times [MD: 29.84 (95% CI: 8.35; 51.32)] and shorter ICU stays [MD: -5.88 (95% CI: -11.10; -0.67)].

Conclusions: TT may offer advantages such as shorter hospital stays, reduced neurological complications, and less bleeding as compared to MS, although it is associated with longer operative times. However, as all included studies were observational, the findings should be interpreted with caution, and further NMA including only randomized trials are warranted.

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
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