Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement
| العنوان: | Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Mohammad Yousuf, Salmasi, Sruthi, Ramaraju, Iqraa, Haq, Ryan A, B Mohamed, Taimoor, Khan, Faruk, Oezalp, George, Asimakopoulos, Shahzad G, Raja |
| المصدر: | Journal of Cardiac Surgery. 37:640-655 |
| بيانات النشر: | Hindawi Limited, 2022. |
| سنة النشر: | 2022 |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: | Bioprosthesis, Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Technology, Treatment Outcome, Aortic Valve, Heart Valve Prosthesis, Humans, Surgery, Aortic Valve Stenosis, Prosthesis Design, Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine |
| الوصف: | Despite the benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses (RDAVR), conventional sutured valves (cAVR) are more commonly used in the treatment for aortic stenosis. Given the paucity of randomized studies, this study aimed to synthesize available data to compare both treatment options.A systematic search of Pubmed, OVID, and MEDLINE was conducted to retrieve comparative studies for RDAVR versus cAVR in the treatment of aortic stenosis. Out of 1773 returned titles, 35 papers were used in the final analysis, including 1 randomized study, 1 registry study, 6 propensity-matched studies, and 28 observational studies, incorporating a total of 10,381 participants (RDAVR n = 3686; cAVR n = 6310).Random-effects meta-analysis found no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of operative mortality, stroke, or bleeding (p .05). The RDAVR group had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-1.35, -1.20], p .001) and cross-clamp times (SMD: -1.05, 95% CI: [-1.12, -0.98], p .001). Length of stay in the intensive care unit was also shorter in the RDAVR group (SMD: -0.385, 95% CI: [-0.679, -0.092], p = .010). The risk of pacemaker insertion was higher for RDAVR (odds ratio [OR]: 2.41, 95% CI: [1.92, 3.01], p .001) as was the risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) at midterm follow-up (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: [1.32, 4.79], p = .005). Effective orifice area and transvalvular gradient were more favorable in RDAVR patients (p .05).Despite the benefits of RDAVR in terms of reduced operative time and enhanced recovery, the risk of pacemaker insertion and midterm PVL remains a significant cause for concern. |
| تدمد: | 1540-8191 0886-0440 |
| URL الوصول: | https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::0f3c471697432637fc5c5cdf5c79d8e7 https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.16223 |
| حقوق: | OPEN |
| رقم الأكسشن: | edsair.doi.dedup.....0f3c471697432637fc5c5cdf5c79d8e7 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | OpenAIRE |
| تدمد: | 15408191 08860440 |
|---|