Search

Background and Aims: Conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CCABG) has been associated with high incidence of stroke, especially for the high degree of aortic manipulation. Off-pump CABG (OPCAB) theoretically represents a valid option, since the avoidance of aortic manipulation can prevent the embolization of atherosclerotic debris. There is a lot of controversy about the outcomes of CCABG compared to OPCAB. The aim of this metanalysis is to examine the incidence of stroke within 30 days from the surgical procedure. Methods and Results: A literature search was conducted from 2009 to 2019 using PubMed database. Nine randomized control trials were included in the metanalysis. Results: The odds ratio between the CCABG vs OPCAB was 0.87 (Lower, Upper limits: 0.65, 1.17, p = 0.355; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.68; Egger’s test: intercept -0.15 [-1.55, 1.25], p = 0.81). Conclusion: Compared to the CCABG, no advantage was detected in the OPCAB group in terms of stroke.

Background: Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) procedures are starting to be accepted as the standard procedures for aortic valve diseases. However, only a limited number of studies have directly compared mini-thoracotomy (MT) to mini-sternotomy (MS). Therefore, the aim of this review was to summarize the available literature for comparison between the procedures to have a better understanding of the risks and benefits to guide future procedures. Methods: A literature search for MT and MS was carried out using two literature databases. Relevant articles were identified and assessed through the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: 15 studies were identified for inclusion in this review. Comparable results were identified between MT and MS in terms of 30-day mortality. In addition, there was no difference in the incidence of stroke, reoperation for bleeding, and wound infection. In contrast, MT showed longer cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamping durations than MS. Conclusion: Both MT and MS surgical approaches are reliable, efficient, and comparable. These findings have to be confirmed by large randomized trials