Suppr超能文献

心力衰竭患者微创与传统连续流左心室辅助装置植入术的比较:一项荟萃分析。

Minimally invasive versus conventional continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation for heart failure: a meta-analysis.

作者信息

Zhang Bufan, Guo Shaohua, Fu Zean, Liu Zhigang

机构信息

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, TEDA International Cardiovascular Hospital, Cardiovascular Clinical College of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, People's Republic of China.

Tianjin Key Laboratory of Ionic-Molecular Function of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Cardiology, Tianjin Institute of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

Heart Fail Rev. 2022 Jul;27(4):1053-1061. doi: 10.1007/s10741-021-10102-z. Epub 2021 Apr 3.

Abstract

Many studies have reported various minimally invasive techniques for continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation. There is no consensus on whether minimally invasive techniques can bring more benefits for patients compared with the conventional technique, due to the limited number of patients and diverse results in current studies. Our meta-analysis mainly discussed the comparison of minimally invasive and conventional techniques. We searched controlled trials from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases until Dec 11, 2020. Perioperative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed among 10 included studies. The protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020221532). There were no statistical differences in the 30-day mortality (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.14), 6-month mortality (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.05), neurological dysfunction (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.76), major infection (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.28), and pump thrombus (OR 1.49; 95% CI 0.63 to 3.52) among the cohorts. Minimally invasive techniques were associated with lower incidences of major bleeding (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.68), severe right heart failure (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.81), and less blood-product utilization (SMD -0.44). Sensitivity analysis suggested that minimally invasive techniques were associated with a lower incidence of respiratory failure (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.96) and shorter mechanical ventilation time (SMD -0.53). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that patients, implanted with a centrifugal pump by minimally invasive techniques, were associated with a shorter length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (SMD -0.27) and hospital stay (SMD -0.42), and less blood-product utilization (SMD -0.26). In conclusion, minimally invasive techniques can reduce the risks of major bleeding, severe right heart failure, and blood-product utilization, as well as have positive impacts on reducing mechanical ventilation time and the risk of respiratory failure. Minimally invasive centrifugal pump implantation can reduce the length of ICU and hospital stay.

摘要

许多研究报告了用于连续流左心室辅助装置植入的各种微创技术。由于目前研究中的患者数量有限且结果多样,对于微创技术与传统技术相比是否能为患者带来更多益处尚无共识。我们的荟萃分析主要讨论了微创技术与传统技术的比较。我们检索了截至2020年12月11日的PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和Embase数据库中的对照试验。对纳入的10项研究中的围手术期和术后结果进行了分析。该方案已在PROSPERO(CRD42020221532)注册。各队列之间在30天死亡率(OR 0.57;95%CI 0.29至1.14)、6个月死亡率(OR 0.66;95%CI 0.41至1.05)、神经功能障碍(OR 1.10;95%CI 0.69至1.76)、严重感染(OR 0.68;95%CI 0.36至1.28)和泵血栓形成(OR 1.49;95%CI 0.63至3.52)方面无统计学差异。微创技术与大出血发生率较低(OR 0.39;95%CI 0.22至0.68)、严重右心衰竭发生率较低(OR 0.43;95%CI 0.23至0.81)以及血液制品使用较少(SMD -0.44)相关。敏感性分析表明,微创技术与呼吸衰竭发生率较低(OR 0.50;95%CI 0.26至0.96)和机械通气时间较短(SMD -0.53)相关。亚组分析表明,通过微创技术植入离心泵的患者,其重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间较短(SMD -0.27)、住院时间较短(SMD -0.42)且血液制品使用较少(SMD -0.26)。总之,微创技术可以降低大出血、严重右心衰竭和血液制品使用的风险,以及对缩短机械通气时间和降低呼吸衰竭风险有积极影响。微创离心泵植入可以缩短ICU和住院时间。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验