European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery
-
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg · Nov 2017
Review Meta AnalysisStopping versus continuing acetylsalicylic acid before coronary artery bypass surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials with 4499 patients.
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of continuing versus stopping aspirin [acetylsalicylic acid (ASA)] preoperatively in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), ClinicalTrials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for randomized controlled trials that reported efficacy outcomes of myocardial infarction and mortality, and safety outcomes of blood loss, packed red blood cell transfusion and surgical re-exploration were compared between groups. Fourteen studies fulfilled our eligibility criteria and included a total of 4499 patients (2329 for 'continuing ASA' and 2170 for 'stopping ASA'). ⋯ Preoperative ASA increased postoperative chest tube drainage (mean difference 143 ml, 95% CI 39-248 ml; P = 0.007) and packed red blood cell transfusion (mean difference 142 ml, 95% CI 55-228; P = 0.001) but did not increase the risk of surgical re-exploration (risk ratio 1.316, 95% CI 0.910-1.905; P = 0.145). This meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference regarding the risk of operative mortality and myocardial infarction between the 'continuing ASA' and 'stopping ASA' strategies. On the other hand, the mean volume of blood loss and packed red blood cell transfusion was higher in the 'continuing ASA' group, but this finding did not translate into higher risk of reoperation for bleeding.
-
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg · Nov 2017
Review Meta AnalysisStopping versus continuing acetylsalicylic acid before coronary artery bypass surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials with 4499 patients.
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of continuing versus stopping aspirin [acetylsalicylic acid (ASA)] preoperatively in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), ClinicalTrials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for randomized controlled trials that reported efficacy outcomes of myocardial infarction and mortality, and safety outcomes of blood loss, packed red blood cell transfusion and surgical re-exploration were compared between groups. Fourteen studies fulfilled our eligibility criteria and included a total of 4499 patients (2329 for 'continuing ASA' and 2170 for 'stopping ASA'). ⋯ Preoperative ASA increased postoperative chest tube drainage (mean difference 143 ml, 95% CI 39-248 ml; P = 0.007) and packed red blood cell transfusion (mean difference 142 ml, 95% CI 55-228; P = 0.001) but did not increase the risk of surgical re-exploration (risk ratio 1.316, 95% CI 0.910-1.905; P = 0.145). This meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference regarding the risk of operative mortality and myocardial infarction between the 'continuing ASA' and 'stopping ASA' strategies. On the other hand, the mean volume of blood loss and packed red blood cell transfusion was higher in the 'continuing ASA' group, but this finding did not translate into higher risk of reoperation for bleeding.
-
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg · Jul 2017
Review Meta AnalysisShort-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in refractory cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is increasingly used as a bridge to decision in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. Subsequently, these patients might be bridged to durable MCS either as a bridge to candidacy/transplantation, or as destination therapy. The aim of this study was to review support duration and clinical outcome of short-term MCS in cardiogenic shock, and to analyse application of this technology as a bridge to long-term cardiac support (left ventricular assist device, LVAD) from 2006 till June 2016. ⋯ Bridge to durable LVAD was most frequently performed in patients with end-stage cardiomyopathy (22 [12-35]%). We conclude that temporary MCS can be used to bridge patients with cardiogenic shock towards durable LVAD. Clinicians are encouraged to share their results in a large multicentre registry in order to investigate optimal device selection and best duration of support.
-
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg · Jul 2017
Review Meta AnalysisShort-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in refractory cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is increasingly used as a bridge to decision in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. Subsequently, these patients might be bridged to durable MCS either as a bridge to candidacy/transplantation, or as destination therapy. The aim of this study was to review support duration and clinical outcome of short-term MCS in cardiogenic shock, and to analyse application of this technology as a bridge to long-term cardiac support (left ventricular assist device, LVAD) from 2006 till June 2016. ⋯ Bridge to durable LVAD was most frequently performed in patients with end-stage cardiomyopathy (22 [12-35]%). We conclude that temporary MCS can be used to bridge patients with cardiogenic shock towards durable LVAD. Clinicians are encouraged to share their results in a large multicentre registry in order to investigate optimal device selection and best duration of support.
-
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg · Mar 2017
Review Meta AnalysisNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy? A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the options for neoadjuvant therapy for treating oesophageal cancer.
Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery is a standard treatment for locally advanced oesophageal cancer. However, the roles of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy in treating oesophageal cancer remain controversial. In this comprehensive meta-analysis, we examine the efficacy of adding radiotherapy to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for treating oesophageal cancer as reported in qualified randomized controlled trials (RCTs). ⋯ In oesophageal adenocarcinoma patients, no significant survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was found compared with neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (46.3 and 41.0%, respectively; RR: 1.13, 95% CI 0.88-1.45, P = 0.34). Our meta-analysis adds to the evidence showing that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy should be the standard preoperative treatment strategy for locally advanced oesophageal SCC. For oesophageal adenocarcinoma, neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone may be the best preoperative treatment strategy to avoid the risk of adverse effects of radiotherapy.