Endoscopic versus open radial artery harvesting: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled and propensity matched studies

Autor:	Lucas B. Ohmes, Fabio Barili, Christopher Lau, Umberto Benedetto, Mario Gaudino, Antonino Di Franco, Robert F. Tranbaugh, Mohamed K. Kamel, Leonard N. Girardi, Mohamed Rahouma
Rok vydání:	2017
Předmět:	coronary artery surgery Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine medicine.medical_specialty Time Factors MEDLINE 030204 cardiovascular system & hematology law.invention wound complication 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Randomized controlled trial law medicine.artery Surgical Wound Dehiscence medicine Clinical endpoint Humans Surgical Wound Infection Radial artery Propensity Score Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic radial artery harvesting business.industry Graft Survival Endoscopy Odds ratio Prognosis Databases Bibliographic Confidence interval Surgery meta-analysis patency rate Systematic review 030228 respiratory system Meta-analysis Radial Artery endoscopic radial artery harvesting Tissue and Organ Harvesting Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine business
Zdroj:	Rahouma, M, Kamel, M, Benedetto, U, Ohmes, L B, Di Franco, A, Lau, C, Girardi, L, Tranbaugh, R F, Barili, F & Gaudino, M 2017, ' Endoscopic Versus Open Radial Artery Harvesting : A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled and Propensity Matched Studies ', Journal of Cardiac Surgery, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 334-341 . https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.13148
ISSN:	0886-0440
Popis:	BackgroundWe sought to investigate the impact of radial artery harvesting techniques on clinical outcomes using a meta‐analytic approach limited to randomized controlled trials and propensity‐matched studies for clinical outcomes, in which graft patency was analyzed.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed and MEDLINE to identify publications containing comparisons between endoscopic radial artery harvesting (ERAH) and open harvesting (ORAH). Only randomized controlled trials and propensity‐matched series were included. Data were extracted and analyzed with RevMan. The primary endpoint was wound complication rate, while secondary endpoints were patency rate, early mortality, and long‐term cardiac mortality.ResultsSix studies comprising 743 patients were included in the meta‐analysis. Of them 324 (43.6%) underwent ERAH and 419 (56.4%) ORAH. ERAH was associated with a lower incidence of wound complications (odds ratio: 0.33, confidence interval 0.14‐0.77; p = 0.01). There were no differences in graft patency, and early and long‐term cardiac mortality between the two techniques.ConclusionERAH reduces wound complications and does not affect graft patency, or short‐ and long‐term mortality compared to ORAH.
Databáze:	OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz:	https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::a44da9de9059d0d590befde7c9f1d890 https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.13148 Zobrazit plný text záznamu Plný text ve formátu PDF Plný text ve formátu HTML
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje	K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.