| Literature DB >> 34746974 |
Adham Ahmed1, Sarah Ahmed2, Kathryn S Varghese3, Dave M Mathew3, Roshan Pandey4, Dillon O Rogando3, Stephanie A Salazar3, Peter J Fusco3, Kenneth H Levy3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ideal conduit for repair of the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) during the Ross procedure remains unclear and has yet to be fully elucidated. We perform a pairwise meta-analysis to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of decellularized versus cryopreserved pulmonary allografts for RVOT reconstruction during the Ross procedure. MAIN BODY: After a comprehensive literature search, studies comparing decellularized and cryopreserved allografts for patients undergoing RVOT reconstruction during the Ross procedure were pooled to perform a pairwise meta-analysis using the random-effects model. Primary outcomes were early mortality and follow-up allograft dysfunction. Secondary outcomes were reintervention rates and follow-up endocarditis. A total of 4 studies including 1687 patients undergoing RVOT reconstruction during the Ross procedure were included. A total of 812 patients received a decellularized pulmonary allograft, while 875 received a cryopreserved pulmonary allograft. Compared to cryopreserved allografts, the decellularized group showed similar rates of early mortality (odds ratio, 0.55, 95% confidence interval, 0.21-1.41, P = 0.22). At a mean follow-up period of 5.89 years, no significant difference was observed between the two groups for follow-up allograft dysfunction (hazard ratio, 0.65, 95% confidence interval, 0.20-2.14, P = 0.48). Similarly, no difference was seen in reintervention rates (hazard ratio, 0.54, 95% confidence interval, 0.09-3.12, P = 0.49) nor endocarditis (hazard ratio, 0.30, 95% confidence interval, 0.07-1.35, P = 0.12) at a mean follow-up of 4.85 and 5.75 years, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Allograft; Aortic valve; Aortic valve replacement; Decellularized; Homograft; Ross; Ross-Yacoub
Year: 2021 PMID: 34746974 PMCID: PMC8572935 DOI: 10.1186/s43044-021-00226-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Egypt Heart J ISSN: 1110-2608
Fig. 1Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) flowchart of our analysis
Summary of included studies
| References | Study period | Hospital | Country | Types of study | Decellularized allograft | Cryopreserved allograft |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bechtel [ | 2000–2002 | University of Luebeck | Germany | Retrospective | 23 | 49 |
| Brown [ | 2000–2005 | Multicenter | USA | Retrospective | 193 | 665 |
| Chauvette [ | 2011–2019 | Multicenter, Canadian Ross Registry | Canada | Retrospective | 466 | 31 |
| Etnel [ | 1995–2017 | Santa Case de Curitiba | Brazil | Retrospective/PSM | 130 | 130 |
PSM: Propensity-score matching
Fig. 2Forest plot comparing early mortality in decellularized allografts versus cryopreserved allografts for patients undergoing right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction during the Ross procedure. MH Mantel–Haenszel, CI confidence interval
Fig. 3Forest plot comparing follow-up allograft dysfunction in decellularized allografts versus cryopreserved allografts for patients undergoing right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction during the Ross procedure. IV inverse variance, CI confidence interval
Fig. 4Forest plot comparing reinterventions in decellularized allografts versus cryopreserved allografts for patients undergoing right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction during the Ross procedure. IV inverse variance, CI confidence interval
Fig. 5Forest plot comparing follow-up endocarditis in decellularized allografts versus cryopreserved allografts for patients undergoing right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction during the Ross procedure. IV inverse variance, CI confidence interval