Bicaval versus standard technique in orthotopic heart transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of the bicaval and the biatrial standard techniques in orthotopic heart transplantation.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed. As data sources, we used the electronic databases EMBASE and Medline (1966-August 2006), hand searching in 4 journals, expert consultation, and reference lists of reviews. Observational and randomized and prospective and retrospective controlled trials that reported outcomes on the 2 techniques of heart transplantation were considered.

RESULTS

A total of 23 retrospective and 18 prospective studies were included. Meta-analyses of prospective trials including between 228 and 472 patients revealed significant superiority of the bicaval technique in comparison with the biatrial procedure for early atrial pressure (weighted mean difference, -3.95; 95% confidence interval, -6.50 to -1.40), perioperative mortality (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.98), tricuspid valve regurgitation (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.15 to 0.36), and sinus rhythm (odds ratio, 7.01; 95% confidence interval, 2.57 to 19.13). The latter also showed a significant difference in the analysis of retrospective studies (odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.55 to 4.66).

CONCLUSION

In summary, this systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence of clinically relevant beneficial effects of the bicaval technique in comparison with those of the standard technique. Nevertheless, the longer-term beneficial effects of the bicaval technique remain to be evaluated.