Despite the rapid expansion of transcatheter approaches for aortic valve implantation, the treatment of choice in patients presenting with multiple valvular heart disease remains surgical aortic valve replacement. Nonetheless, it is well known that cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross-clamp time are important independent predictors of mortality in patients undergoing multivalve procedures (1).Approaches enabling a reduction in ischemia-reperfusion injury during valve procedures are very desirable, especially
Introduction
The benefit of total arterial revascularization (TAR) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains a controversial issue. This study sought to evaluate whether there is any difference on the long-term results of TAR and non-TAR CABG patients.
Methods
The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL/CCTR), Clinical Trials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies published by October 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies with propensity score matching comparing TAR
versus
non-TAR CABG were included. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. The current barriers to implementation of TAR in clinical practice and measures that can be used to optimize outcomes were reviewed.
Results
Fourteen publications (from 2012 to 2020) involving a total of 22,746 patients (TAR: 8,941 patients; non-TAR: 13,805 patients) were included. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for long-term mortality (over 10 years) was lower in the TAR group than in the non-TAR group (random effect model: HR 0.676, 95% confidence interval 0.586-0.779,
P
<0.001). There was evidence of low heterogeneity of treatment effect among the studies for mortality, and none of the studies had a particular impact on the summary result. The result was not influenced by age, sex, or comorbidities. We identified low risk of publication bias related to this outcome.
Conclusion
This review found that TAR presents the best long-term results in patients who undergo CABG. Given that many patients are likely to benefit from TAR, its use should be encouraged.
Introduction: Primary cardiac sarcomas (PCSs) are an extremely rare and aggressive type of malignancies that have been described only by a limited number of observational studies. This study aimed to evaluate the currently existing evidence comparing surgical to multimodality treatment of PCS.Methods: We systematically reviewed Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar, from inception to December 2020, for original articles about surgical and multimodality treatment of PCS. The outcomes included were mortality at various time points, resection margin status, and mean estimated survival. The pooled treatment effects were calculated using a random-effects model.Results: Ten studies including a total of 1570 patients met our inclusion criteria. Surgery was associated with significantly lower mortality when compared to conservative treatment at 1, 2, and 3 years, whereas no significant difference was found at 5 years. Furthermore, multimodality treatment showed significantly lower mortality at 1 year when compared to surgery alone, but not at 2 and 5 years. We found no difference in mortality between angiosarcomas and other PCS subtypes.
Conclusion:Overall, surgery was found to provide a significant mortality advantage to PCS patients up to 3 years following treatment. Multimodality treatment might be of additional benefit, although only within the first year. Prospective randomized studies are needed to further explore these differences in the treatment of PCS.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.