Search

Background: For patients with aortic root dilatation and a structurally normal aortic valve (AV) undergoing composite aortic valve-graft (Bentall-De Bono) versus valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) procedures there are conflicting data regarding early and long-term benefits. We undertook a study-level meta-analysis to compare the results of both procedures., Methods: Three databases were assessed, and both randomized trials and observational studies were considered eligible. Kaplan-Meier curves of long-term survival and reoperation risk were reconstructed and compared with Cox linear regression and incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Landmark analysis and time-varying hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for early mortality, postoperative stroke, and re-exploration for postoperative bleeding. A random effects model was used. Sensitivity analyses included leave-one-out-analysis, meta-regression and subgroups analysis., Results: 1456 articles were identified, including 39 observational studies, totaling 14,651 patients (Bentall-De Bono = 9557 and VSARR = 5094). Twelve studies were adjusted. The mean weighted follow-up was 5.05 ± 3.7 years. VSARR was associated with significantly greater survival (HR = 0.50; 95 % CI, 0.45-0.57; p < 0.0001) at 15-year follow-up. The reoperation risk was higher following VSARR (HR = 1.30; 95 % CI, 1.03-1.63; p = 0.02.), although time-varying HR model and landmark analysis reported an increased risk of reoperation within 5 years after VSARR (HR = 1.57; 95 % CI, 1.23-2.01; p < 0.001), after which the difference disappeared. Subgroups analysis of studies excluding aortic dissection showed a comparable rate of late reoperation., Conclusions: VSARR is associated with improved long-term survival compared to Bentall-De Bono. The risk of late reoperation is higher within 5 years following VSARR, after which the two procedures are comparable., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Non declared., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: The ideal surgical intervention for secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR), a disease of the left ventricle not the mitral valve itself, is still debated. We performed an updated systematic review and study-level meta-analysis investigating mitral valve repair (MVr) versus mitral valve replacement (MVR) for adult patients with SMR, with or without coronary artery disease (CAD)., Methods: PubMed, CENTRAL and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing MVr versus MVR. Randomized trial or observational studies were considered eligible. Primary endpoint was long-term mortality for any cause. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were reconstructed and compared with Cox linear regression. Landmark analysis and time-varying hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed. Sensitivity analyses included meta-regression and separate sub-analysis. A random effects model was used., Results: Twenty-three studies (MVr=3,727 and MVR=2,839) were included. One study was a randomized trial, and 19 studies were adjusted. The mean weighted follow-up was 3.7±2.8 years. MVR was associated with significative greater late mortality (HR=1.26; 95 % CI, 1.14-1.39; P<0.0001) at 10-year follow-up. There was a time-varying trend showing an increased risk of mortality in the first 2 years after MVR (HR=1.38; 95 % CI, 1.21-1.56; P<0.0001), after which this difference dissipated (HR=0.94; 95 % CI, 0.81-1.09; P=0.41). Separate sub-analyses showed comparable long-term mortality in patients with concomitant coronary surgery ≥90 %, left ventricle ejection fraction ≤40 %, and sub-valvular apparatus preservation rate of 100 %., Conclusions: Compared to repair, MVR is associated with higher probability of mortality in the first 2 years following surgery, after which the two procedures showed comparable late mortality rate., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The benefits of single (SITA) and bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA) in diabetics undergoing coronary bypass grafting (CABG) are conflicting. We undertook a study-level meta-analysis to compare early and long-term outcomes of both CABG configurations. PubMed, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing BITA versus SITA for isolated CABG surgery in diabetics. Randomized trials or observational studies were considered eligible for the analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves of long-term survival were reconstructed and compared with Cox linear regression; incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for long-term survival were calculated. Landmark analysis and time-varying hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed. Odds ratios (OR) were extracted for early mortality, postoperative stroke, deep sternal wound infection (DSWI), and myocardial infarction (MI). A random effects meta-analysis was performed. Sensitivity analyses included leave-one-out-analyses and meta-regression. Thirteen studies (7332 patients) were included. Overall, at 20-year follow-up, BITA was associated with higher survival (HR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; P < 0.0001). Time-varying HR and landmark analysis reported BITA was associated with a higher rate of 10-year survival (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.82, P < 0.0001), while from 10 to 20-year follow-up no difference was revealed (HR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.82-1.19, P = 0.93). There was no increase in early mortality, postoperative MI, stroke, or DSWI between the groups. At meta-regression, the higher the age, the higher the long-term overall survival in patients with BITA. In diabetics, the BITA approach is associated with improved 10-year survival with no increase in early mortality, MI, stroke, or DSWI. In the 10-20-year timeframe, BITA and SITA showed comparable survival., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)