Background: Surgical interventions for aortic aneurysm and dissection remain associated with high risk of mortality and morbidity. Advances in operative techniques have led to a variety of options for the cardiac surgeon, including endovascular and hybrid approaches. Debate remains over which of these techniques provide optimal outcomes for the patient. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate long term patient survival and identify short-term outcomes for conventional (open) aortic arch repair and hybrid aortic arch repair (HAR).Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted according to predefined inclusion criteria for hybrid and conventional aortic arch repair surgery. Digitized survival data was extracted from identified studies' Kaplan-Meier curves and used to re-create individual patient data for aggregated survival analysis.Post-operative morbidity and mortality were analyzed using random-effects model meta-analysis.Results: Nine studies were included, containing 841 hybrid arch repair and 1,182 conventional arch repair patients. Pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis of all patients demonstrated higher survival in hybrid arch repair patients than conventional arch repair patients, however, this was noted to be sensitive to results from a particular study. Overall results showed for the hybrid repair cohort, survival at 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 years was 87%, 85%, 83%, 78% and 75%, respectively. Survival in the conventional repair cohort at 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 years was 84%, 82%, 80%, 75% and 71%, respectively. Statistically significant findings from meta-analysis showed hybrid arch repair was associated with lower risk of re-operation for bleeding, while conventional arch repair was associated with reduced risk of spinal cord injury.Conclusions: Pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis of all studies showed long-term survival outcomes for hybrid and conventional aortic arch repair patients are heterogeneous and sensitive to the results of particular studies. Superior results from particular centres and the low number of comparative studies mean that more data is required to make definitive findings with regards to the long-term survival outcomes of either procedure. Hybrid arch repair was associated with lower risk of re-operation for bleeding, while conventional arch repair was associated with lower risk of spinal cord injury. Surgeons should consider their own center's experience and patient suitability when deciding between hybrid or conventional aortic repair techniques.
Background: Numerous agents have been trialed following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to maintain long-term graft patency. While clear evidence exists for the use of aspirin in maintaining graft patency, the role of dual-antiplatelet therapy in CABG patients is not as well established. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the short-term post-CABG graft patency outcomes for patients with none, one or two antiplatelet agents.Methods: Electronic databases were queried for randomized controlled trials comparing CABG graft patency rates at three months and beyond using various antiplatelet agents or placebo. Drug and graft patency data were compared using a mixed treatment comparison under a Bayesian hierarchical framework.A random-effects consistency model was applied. Direct and indirect comparisons were made between drugs and used to determine the relative efficacy for graft patency. Results: The literature search identified 16 papers fulfilling the inclusion criteria, including a total of 3,133 patients with an average of 2.43 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.20-2.66] grafts per patient. Graft types were incompletely reported, however, saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) were predominantly used [where specifically reported: 4,490 SVG, 1,226 internal mammary artery (IMA) grafts]. In all, five different agents and placebo in various regimens were compared by results of angiographic follow-up conducted at a mean of 10.4months (95% CI: 9.28-11.5 months). Compared to placebo, aspirin alone [odds ratio (OR) 1.9; 95% credible interval (CrI): 1.3-2.8], aspirin + dipyridamole (OR 1.9; 95% CrI: 1.3-2.6), aspirin + clopidogrel (OR 2.9; 95% CrI: 1.5-5.7) and aspirin + ticagrelor (OR 3.8; 95% CrI: 1.2-13.0) significantly improved graft patency.When compared to aspirin monotherapy, aspirin + clopidogrel (OR 1.6; 95% CrI: 0.86-2.7) and aspirin + ticagrelor (OR 2.0; 95% CrI: 0.69-6.3) had OR that suggested a trend favoring patency compared to aspirin monotherapy, however, these results did not reach significance. Sub-group analysis of SVG graft patency was unable to reach significance (only eight studies with six treatment comparisons were evaluated). Secondary endpoints of death, bleeding, myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular accident were incompletely reported and were pooled but not compared between drug treatment arms.Conclusions: Aspirin monotherapy and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) provided significant all-graft patency benefit compared to placebo at three months and beyond. A trend existed for DAPT to improve graft patency compared to aspirin, although this did not reach statistical significance. Further randomized controlled studies comparing aspirin monotherapy to DAPT are required to determine the utility of DAPT in CABG patients for maintaining graft patency. 578Chakos et al. Network meta-analysis of antiplatelet agents post-CABG
Background: Surgical interventions for aortic aneurysm and dissection remain associated with high risk of mortality and morbidity. Advances in operative techniques have led to a variety of options for the cardiac surgeon, including endovascular and hybrid approaches. Debate remains over which of these techniques provide optimal outcomes for the patient. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate long term patient survival and identify short-term outcomes for conventional (open) aortic arch repair and hybrid aortic arch repair (HAR).Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted according to predefined inclusion criteria for hybrid and conventional aortic arch repair surgery. Digitized survival data was extracted from identified studies' Kaplan-Meier curves and used to re-create individual patient data for aggregated survival analysis.Post-operative morbidity and mortality were analyzed using random-effects model meta-analysis.Results: Nine studies were included, containing 841 hybrid arch repair and 1,182 conventional arch repair patients. Pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis of all patients demonstrated higher survival in hybrid arch repair patients than conventional arch repair patients, however, this was noted to be sensitive to results from a particular study. Overall results showed for the hybrid repair cohort, survival at 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 years was 87%, 85%, 83%, 78% and 75%, respectively. Survival in the conventional repair cohort at 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 years was 84%, 82%, 80%, 75% and 71%, respectively. Statistically significant findings from meta-analysis showed hybrid arch repair was associated with lower risk of re-operation for bleeding, while conventional arch repair was associated with reduced risk of spinal cord injury.Conclusions: Pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis of all studies showed long-term survival outcomes for hybrid and conventional aortic arch repair patients are heterogeneous and sensitive to the results of particular studies. Superior results from particular centres and the low number of comparative studies mean that more data is required to make definitive findings with regards to the long-term survival outcomes of either procedure. Hybrid arch repair was associated with lower risk of re-operation for bleeding, while conventional arch repair was associated with lower risk of spinal cord injury. Surgeons should consider their own center's experience and patient suitability when deciding between hybrid or conventional aortic repair techniques.
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.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.