Literature DB >> 29506260

External aortic clamping versus endoaortic balloon occlusion in minimally invasive cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Habib Khan1, Christopher Hadjittofi2, Mohsin Uzzaman3, Kareem Salhiyyah4, Sheena Garg1, Salman Butt5, Haleema Aya5, Sanjay Chaubey6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive cardiac valve surgery is safe, effective and increasingly popular. It is performed worldwide with the use of either external aortic clamping or endoaortic balloon occlusion.
METHODS: We conducted a literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science. Primary outcomes included aortic dissection, conversion to sternotomy, mortality, stroke and cross-clamp time. Secondary outcomes included atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, reoperation for bleeding, cardiopulmonary bypass times, myocardial infarction, use of intra-aortic balloon pump and length of hospital stay. The random effects model was used to calculate the outcomes of both binary and continuous data.
RESULTS: Thirty retrospective studies were included in the meta-analysis. The incidence of aortic dissection (pooled odds ratio = 3.88, 95% confidence interval = 1.06-14.18; P =0.04) and conversion to sternotomy (pooled odds ratio = 3.07, 95% confidence interval = 1.33-7.10; P = 0.009) was higher in the endoaortic balloon occlusion group than in the external aortic clamping group, in whom a direct comparison was possible. The remaining observational studies did not show any significant differences in either group. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (P = 0.37), stroke (P = 0.26), cross-clamp time (P = 0.20), atrial fibrillation (P = 0.18), acute kidney injury (P = 0.49), reoperation for bleeding (P = 0.24), cardiopulmonary bypass time (P = 0.06), myocardial infarction (P = 0.74), use of intra-aortic balloon pump (P = 0.11) or length of hospital stay (P = 0.47).
CONCLUSIONS: External aortic clamping may be safer than endoaortic balloon occlusion with respect to aortic dissection and conversion to sternotomy. However, mortality, length of stay, stroke, cross-clamp time and other cardiovascular complication rates were similar between the 2 techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29506260     DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivy016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg        ISSN: 1569-9285


  6 in total

Review 1.  Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.

Authors:  Yasir Abu-Omar; Ibrahim T Fazmin; Jason M Ali; Marc P Pelletier
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Imaging and monitoring in minimally invasive valve surgery using an intra-aortic occlusion device: a single center experience.

Authors:  Calogera Pisano; Andrea Farinaccio; Claudia Altieri; Valentina Ajello; Paolo Nardi; Dionisio Ferdinando Colella; Giovanni Ruvolo
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Commentary: Endoaortic balloon occlusion for minimally invasive mitral valve surgery: An empowering alternative.

Authors:  Jake L Rosen; T Sloane Guy
Journal:  JTCVS Tech       Date:  2021-10-13

4.  Minimally invasive and robotic approaches to mitral valve surgery: Transthoracic aortic crossclamping is optimal.

Authors:  Michael J Bates; W Randolph Chitwood
Journal:  JTCVS Tech       Date:  2021-09-22

5.  External aortic cross-clamping and endoaortic balloon occlusion in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery.

Authors:  Pietro Giorgio Malvindi; Vito Margari; Florinda Mastro; Giuseppe Visicchio; Georgios Kounakis; Antonella Favale; Pierpaolo Dambruoso; Cataldo Labriola; Carmine Carbone; Domenico Paparella
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-11

6.  Long-term results of endoclamping in patients undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve surgery where external aortic clamping cannot be used - a propensity matched analysis.

Authors:  Ayse Cetinkaya; Emad Ebraheem; Karin Bramlage; Stefan Hein; Peter Bramlage; Yeong-Hoon Choi; Markus Schönburg; Manfred Richter
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 1.637

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.