脑保护策略与急性A型主动脉夹层患者早期死亡率和术后卒中的关系:一项系统综述和荟萃分析

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Journal of Cardiac Surgery Pub Date : 2023-05-30 DOI:10.1155/2023/3975367
Caius Mustonen, Mikko Uimonen
{"title":"脑保护策略与急性A型主动脉夹层患者早期死亡率和术后卒中的关系:一项系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Caius Mustonen, Mikko Uimonen","doi":"10.1155/2023/3975367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective. The optimal cerebral protection strategy in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is still without a clear consensus. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcome of different cerebral protection strategies on ATAAD patients. Materials and Methods. We conducted a systematic review including all studies concerning surgically managed ATAAD patients between 1.1.2010 and 28.2.2022 and reporting the use of cerebral protection strategies in three large databases (Pubmed, Cochrane library, and Scopus). The main outcome events were 30-day mortality and a postoperative stroke rate. The pooled event rates adjusted by age, gender, CPB duration, circulatory arrest duration, and total arch reconstruction rate were calculated. Results. Overall, 39 articles were included covering a total of 16, 876 ATAAD patients. The estimated adjusted pooled early mortality rate was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1–11.3%) in the ACP group, 15.9% (13.3–18.9%) in the RCP group, and 11.6% (9.2–14.5%) in the HCA group. Compared to the RCP group, ACP and HCA demonstrated lower early mortality (RCP vs. ACP odds-ratio 1.66 [1.28–2.15], <math xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\" id=\"M1\"> <mi>p</mi> </math> < 0.001; RCP vs. HCA odds-ratio 1.45 [1.02–2.07], <math xmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\" id=\"M2\"> <mi>p</mi> </math> = 0.039). The adjusted pooled stroke rate was 9.0% (8.3–9.8%) in the ACP group, 10.5% (9.3–11.7%) in the RCP group, and 9.1% (8.1–10.2%) in the HCA group. Conclusion. Early mortality might be more common in ATAAD patients treated with RCP compared to ACP and HCA. With regards to postoperative stroke, the results were inconclusive despite the trending inferiority of RCP compared to the other strategies.","PeriodicalId":15367,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiac Surgery","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Association of the Cerebral Protection Strategy with Early Mortality and Postoperative Stroke in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Caius Mustonen, Mikko Uimonen\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2023/3975367\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective. The optimal cerebral protection strategy in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is still without a clear consensus. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcome of different cerebral protection strategies on ATAAD patients. Materials and Methods. We conducted a systematic review including all studies concerning surgically managed ATAAD patients between 1.1.2010 and 28.2.2022 and reporting the use of cerebral protection strategies in three large databases (Pubmed, Cochrane library, and Scopus). The main outcome events were 30-day mortality and a postoperative stroke rate. The pooled event rates adjusted by age, gender, CPB duration, circulatory arrest duration, and total arch reconstruction rate were calculated. Results. Overall, 39 articles were included covering a total of 16, 876 ATAAD patients. The estimated adjusted pooled early mortality rate was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1–11.3%) in the ACP group, 15.9% (13.3–18.9%) in the RCP group, and 11.6% (9.2–14.5%) in the HCA group. Compared to the RCP group, ACP and HCA demonstrated lower early mortality (RCP vs. ACP odds-ratio 1.66 [1.28–2.15], <math xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\\\" id=\\\"M1\\\"> <mi>p</mi> </math> < 0.001; RCP vs. HCA odds-ratio 1.45 [1.02–2.07], <math xmlns=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\\\" id=\\\"M2\\\"> <mi>p</mi> </math> = 0.039). The adjusted pooled stroke rate was 9.0% (8.3–9.8%) in the ACP group, 10.5% (9.3–11.7%) in the RCP group, and 9.1% (8.1–10.2%) in the HCA group. Conclusion. Early mortality might be more common in ATAAD patients treated with RCP compared to ACP and HCA. With regards to postoperative stroke, the results were inconclusive despite the trending inferiority of RCP compared to the other strategies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15367,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiac Surgery\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiac Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3975367\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiac Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/3975367","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标。急性A型主动脉夹层(ATAAD)的最佳脑保护策略仍没有明确的共识。本荟萃分析的目的是比较不同脑保护策略对ATAAD患者的效果。材料与方法。我们对2010年1月1日至2022年2月28日期间所有手术治疗ATAAD患者的研究进行了系统回顾,并在三个大型数据库(Pubmed、Cochrane图书馆和Scopus)中报告了脑保护策略的使用情况。主要结局事件为30天死亡率和术后卒中发生率。计算按年龄、性别、CPB持续时间、循环停搏持续时间和总弓重建率调整的合并事件发生率。结果。总共纳入39篇文章,共16,876例ATAAD患者。校正后的合并早期死亡率在ACP组为10.1%(95%可信区间[CI] 9.1-11.3%),在RCP组为15.9%(13.3-18.9%),在HCA组为11.6%(9.2-14.5%)。与RCP组相比,ACP和HCA组的早期死亡率较低(RCP vs. ACP比值比1.66 [1.28-2.15],p <0.001;RCP vs. HCA比值比1.45 [1.02-2.07],p = 0.039)。ACP组调整合并脑卒中发生率为9.0% (8.3-9.8%),RCP组为10.5% (9.3-11.7%),HCA组为9.1%(8.1-10.2%)。结论。与ACP和HCA相比,RCP治疗的ATAAD患者早期死亡可能更常见。关于术后卒中,尽管RCP与其他策略相比有较低的趋势,但结果仍不确定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Association of the Cerebral Protection Strategy with Early Mortality and Postoperative Stroke in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Objective. The optimal cerebral protection strategy in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is still without a clear consensus. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcome of different cerebral protection strategies on ATAAD patients. Materials and Methods. We conducted a systematic review including all studies concerning surgically managed ATAAD patients between 1.1.2010 and 28.2.2022 and reporting the use of cerebral protection strategies in three large databases (Pubmed, Cochrane library, and Scopus). The main outcome events were 30-day mortality and a postoperative stroke rate. The pooled event rates adjusted by age, gender, CPB duration, circulatory arrest duration, and total arch reconstruction rate were calculated. Results. Overall, 39 articles were included covering a total of 16, 876 ATAAD patients. The estimated adjusted pooled early mortality rate was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1–11.3%) in the ACP group, 15.9% (13.3–18.9%) in the RCP group, and 11.6% (9.2–14.5%) in the HCA group. Compared to the RCP group, ACP and HCA demonstrated lower early mortality (RCP vs. ACP odds-ratio 1.66 [1.28–2.15], p < 0.001; RCP vs. HCA odds-ratio 1.45 [1.02–2.07], p = 0.039). The adjusted pooled stroke rate was 9.0% (8.3–9.8%) in the ACP group, 10.5% (9.3–11.7%) in the RCP group, and 9.1% (8.1–10.2%) in the HCA group. Conclusion. Early mortality might be more common in ATAAD patients treated with RCP compared to ACP and HCA. With regards to postoperative stroke, the results were inconclusive despite the trending inferiority of RCP compared to the other strategies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
12.50%
发文量
976
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiac Surgery (JCS) is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to contemporary surgical treatment of cardiac disease. Renown for its detailed "how to" methods, JCS''s well-illustrated, concise technical articles, critical reviews and commentaries are highly valued by dedicated readers worldwide. With Editor-in-Chief Harold Lazar, MD and an internationally prominent editorial board, JCS continues its 20-year history as an important professional resource. Editorial coverage includes biologic support, mechanical cardiac assist and/or replacement and surgical techniques, and features current material on topics such as OPCAB surgery, stented and stentless valves, endovascular stent placement, atrial fibrillation, transplantation, percutaneous valve repair/replacement, left ventricular restoration surgery, immunobiology, and bridges to transplant and recovery. In addition, special sections (Images in Cardiac Surgery, Cardiac Regeneration) and historical reviews stimulate reader interest. The journal also routinely publishes proceedings of important international symposia in a timely manner.
期刊最新文献
Successful Resection of a Big Hemolymphangioma of the Left Atrial Appendage With 8 Years of Follow-Up Chest Tube Clearance Strategies Versus Conventional Chest Tubes After Cardiac Surgery Long-Term Survival of Mitroflow and Perimount Aortic Valve Replacements Contemporary Surgical Approaches in Pediatric Aortic Valve Surgery: A Retrospective Comparison of Three Techniques Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies: Transcatheter Versus Surgical Closure for Postinfarct Ventricular Septal Defect
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1