Isao Anzai, Yanling Zhao, Arnaldo Dimagli, Christian Pearsall, Marian LaForest, Emile Bacha, David Kalfa
{"title":"先天性大动脉转位解剖与生理性修复后的结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Isao Anzai, Yanling Zhao, Arnaldo Dimagli, Christian Pearsall, Marian LaForest, Emile Bacha, David Kalfa","doi":"10.1177/21501351221127894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Surgical treatment for congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries is widely debated, with both physiologic repair and anatomic repair holding advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis, which includes 44 total studies consisting of 1857 patients, compares mortality at different time points (operative, in-hospital, and post-discharge), reoperation rates, and postoperative ventricular dysfunction between these two categories of procedures. Although anatomic and physiologic repair had similar operative and in-hospital mortality, anatomic repair patients had significantly less post-discharge mortality (6.1% vs 9.7%; <i>P</i> = .006), lower reoperation rates (17.9% vs 20.6%; <i>P</i> < .001), and less postoperative ventricular dysfunction (16% vs 43%; <i>P</i> < .001). When anatomic repair patients were subdivided into those who had atrial and arterial switch versus those who had atrial switch with Rastelli, the double switch group had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 7.6%; <i>P</i> = .026) and reoperation rates (15.6% vs 25.9%; <i>P</i> < .001). The results of this meta-analysis suggest a protective benefit of favoring anatomic repair over physiologic repair.</p>","PeriodicalId":23974,"journal":{"name":"World Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery","volume":"14 1","pages":"70-76"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes After Anatomic Versus Physiologic Repair of Congenitally Corrected Transposition of the Great Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Isao Anzai, Yanling Zhao, Arnaldo Dimagli, Christian Pearsall, Marian LaForest, Emile Bacha, David Kalfa\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21501351221127894\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Surgical treatment for congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries is widely debated, with both physiologic repair and anatomic repair holding advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis, which includes 44 total studies consisting of 1857 patients, compares mortality at different time points (operative, in-hospital, and post-discharge), reoperation rates, and postoperative ventricular dysfunction between these two categories of procedures. Although anatomic and physiologic repair had similar operative and in-hospital mortality, anatomic repair patients had significantly less post-discharge mortality (6.1% vs 9.7%; <i>P</i> = .006), lower reoperation rates (17.9% vs 20.6%; <i>P</i> < .001), and less postoperative ventricular dysfunction (16% vs 43%; <i>P</i> < .001). When anatomic repair patients were subdivided into those who had atrial and arterial switch versus those who had atrial switch with Rastelli, the double switch group had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 7.6%; <i>P</i> = .026) and reoperation rates (15.6% vs 25.9%; <i>P</i> < .001). The results of this meta-analysis suggest a protective benefit of favoring anatomic repair over physiologic repair.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23974,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"70-76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21501351221127894\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21501351221127894","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
先天性大动脉转位的手术治疗存在广泛的争议,生理修复和解剖修复各有优缺点。本荟萃分析包括44项研究,共1857例患者,比较了两类手术在不同时间点(手术、住院和出院后)的死亡率、再手术率和术后心室功能障碍。虽然解剖修复术和生理性修复术的手术死亡率和住院死亡率相似,但解剖修复术患者的出院后死亡率显著降低(6.1% vs 9.7%;P = 0.006),再手术率较低(17.9% vs 20.6%;P P P = 0.026)和再手术率(15.6% vs 25.9%;P
Outcomes After Anatomic Versus Physiologic Repair of Congenitally Corrected Transposition of the Great Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Surgical treatment for congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries is widely debated, with both physiologic repair and anatomic repair holding advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis, which includes 44 total studies consisting of 1857 patients, compares mortality at different time points (operative, in-hospital, and post-discharge), reoperation rates, and postoperative ventricular dysfunction between these two categories of procedures. Although anatomic and physiologic repair had similar operative and in-hospital mortality, anatomic repair patients had significantly less post-discharge mortality (6.1% vs 9.7%; P = .006), lower reoperation rates (17.9% vs 20.6%; P < .001), and less postoperative ventricular dysfunction (16% vs 43%; P < .001). When anatomic repair patients were subdivided into those who had atrial and arterial switch versus those who had atrial switch with Rastelli, the double switch group had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 7.6%; P = .026) and reoperation rates (15.6% vs 25.9%; P < .001). The results of this meta-analysis suggest a protective benefit of favoring anatomic repair over physiologic repair.