Cargando…

Clinical outcomes of automated anastomotic devices: A metanalysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We investigated neurological events, graft patency, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and mortality at 1 year following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery using automated proximal anastomotic devices (APADs) and compared the overall rates with the current...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Micali, Linda Renata, Matteucci, Francesco, Parise, Orlando, Tetta, Cecilia, Moula, Amalia Ioanna, de Jong, Monique, Londero, Francesco, Gelsomino, Sandro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6900158/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31472023
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocs.14186
_version_ 1783477294071808000
author Micali, Linda Renata
Matteucci, Francesco
Parise, Orlando
Tetta, Cecilia
Moula, Amalia Ioanna
de Jong, Monique
Londero, Francesco
Gelsomino, Sandro
author_facet Micali, Linda Renata
Matteucci, Francesco
Parise, Orlando
Tetta, Cecilia
Moula, Amalia Ioanna
de Jong, Monique
Londero, Francesco
Gelsomino, Sandro
author_sort Micali, Linda Renata
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We investigated neurological events, graft patency, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and mortality at 1 year following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery using automated proximal anastomotic devices (APADs) and compared the overall rates with the current literature. METHODS: A systematic review of all available reports of APADs use in the literature was conducted. Cumulative incidence and 95% confidence interval (CI) were the main statistical indexes. Nine observational studies encompassing a total of 718 patients were included at the end of the selection process. RESULTS: The cumulative event rate of neurological complications was 4.8% (lower‐upper limits: 2.8‐8.0, P < .001; I(2) = 72.907%, P = .002; Egger's test: intercept = –2.47, P = 0.16; Begg and Mazumdar test: τ = −0.20, p = 0.57). Graft patency was 90.5% (80.4 to 95.7, P < .001; I(2) = 76.823%, P = .005; Egger's test: intercept = –3.04, P = .10; Begg and Mazumdar test: τ = −0.67, P = .17). Furthermore, the overall incidence of MACEs was 3.7% (1.3‐10.4, P < .001; I(2) = 51.556%, P = .103; Egger's test: intercept = –1.98, P =  < .11; Begg and Mazumdar test: τ = −0.67, P = .17). Finally, mortality within 1 year was 5% (3.5‐7, P < .001; I(2) = 29.675%, P = .202; Egger's test: intercept = –0.91, P = .62; Begg and Mazumdar test: τ = −0.04, P = .88). CONCLUSIONS: APADs do not seem to be correlated with a reduction of either neurological events or mortality. By contrast, these tools showed satisfactory one‐year graft patency and a low incidence of MACEs. Further research on this topic is warranted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6900158
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69001582019-12-20 Clinical outcomes of automated anastomotic devices: A metanalysis Micali, Linda Renata Matteucci, Francesco Parise, Orlando Tetta, Cecilia Moula, Amalia Ioanna de Jong, Monique Londero, Francesco Gelsomino, Sandro J Card Surg Review Articles BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We investigated neurological events, graft patency, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and mortality at 1 year following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery using automated proximal anastomotic devices (APADs) and compared the overall rates with the current literature. METHODS: A systematic review of all available reports of APADs use in the literature was conducted. Cumulative incidence and 95% confidence interval (CI) were the main statistical indexes. Nine observational studies encompassing a total of 718 patients were included at the end of the selection process. RESULTS: The cumulative event rate of neurological complications was 4.8% (lower‐upper limits: 2.8‐8.0, P < .001; I(2) = 72.907%, P = .002; Egger's test: intercept = –2.47, P = 0.16; Begg and Mazumdar test: τ = −0.20, p = 0.57). Graft patency was 90.5% (80.4 to 95.7, P < .001; I(2) = 76.823%, P = .005; Egger's test: intercept = –3.04, P = .10; Begg and Mazumdar test: τ = −0.67, P = .17). Furthermore, the overall incidence of MACEs was 3.7% (1.3‐10.4, P < .001; I(2) = 51.556%, P = .103; Egger's test: intercept = –1.98, P =  < .11; Begg and Mazumdar test: τ = −0.67, P = .17). Finally, mortality within 1 year was 5% (3.5‐7, P < .001; I(2) = 29.675%, P = .202; Egger's test: intercept = –0.91, P = .62; Begg and Mazumdar test: τ = −0.04, P = .88). CONCLUSIONS: APADs do not seem to be correlated with a reduction of either neurological events or mortality. By contrast, these tools showed satisfactory one‐year graft patency and a low incidence of MACEs. Further research on this topic is warranted. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-08-31 2019-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6900158/ /pubmed/31472023 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocs.14186 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Cardiac Surgery published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Review Articles
Micali, Linda Renata
Matteucci, Francesco
Parise, Orlando
Tetta, Cecilia
Moula, Amalia Ioanna
de Jong, Monique
Londero, Francesco
Gelsomino, Sandro
Clinical outcomes of automated anastomotic devices: A metanalysis
title Clinical outcomes of automated anastomotic devices: A metanalysis
title_full Clinical outcomes of automated anastomotic devices: A metanalysis
title_fullStr Clinical outcomes of automated anastomotic devices: A metanalysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical outcomes of automated anastomotic devices: A metanalysis
title_short Clinical outcomes of automated anastomotic devices: A metanalysis
title_sort clinical outcomes of automated anastomotic devices: a metanalysis
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6900158/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31472023
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jocs.14186
work_keys_str_mv AT micalilindarenata clinicaloutcomesofautomatedanastomoticdevicesametanalysis
AT matteuccifrancesco clinicaloutcomesofautomatedanastomoticdevicesametanalysis
AT pariseorlando clinicaloutcomesofautomatedanastomoticdevicesametanalysis
AT tettacecilia clinicaloutcomesofautomatedanastomoticdevicesametanalysis
AT moulaamaliaioanna clinicaloutcomesofautomatedanastomoticdevicesametanalysis
AT dejongmonique clinicaloutcomesofautomatedanastomoticdevicesametanalysis
AT londerofrancesco clinicaloutcomesofautomatedanastomoticdevicesametanalysis
AT gelsominosandro clinicaloutcomesofautomatedanastomoticdevicesametanalysis