Cargando…

Conventional versus miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the effects of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) on morbidity and mortality rates after cardiac surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheng, Timothy, Barve, Rajas, Cheng, Yeu Wah Michael, Ravendren, Andrew, Ahmed, Amna, Toh, Steven, Goulden, Christopher J., Harky, Amer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9390465/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36004169
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xjon.2021.09.037
_version_ 1784770660521738240
author Cheng, Timothy
Barve, Rajas
Cheng, Yeu Wah Michael
Ravendren, Andrew
Ahmed, Amna
Toh, Steven
Goulden, Christopher J.
Harky, Amer
author_facet Cheng, Timothy
Barve, Rajas
Cheng, Yeu Wah Michael
Ravendren, Andrew
Ahmed, Amna
Toh, Steven
Goulden, Christopher J.
Harky, Amer
author_sort Cheng, Timothy
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the effects of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) on morbidity and mortality rates after cardiac surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials from the year 2000 with n > 40 patients were considered. Key search terms included variations of “mini,” “cardiopulmonary,” “bypass,” “extracorporeal,” “perfusion,” and “circuit.” Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcomes were postoperative mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, renal failure, blood loss, and a composite outcome comprised of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and renal failure. Duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay was also recorded. RESULTS: The 42 studies eligible for this study included a total of 2154 patients who underwent CECC and 2196 patients who underwent MECC. There were no significant differences in any preoperative or demographic characteristics. Compared with CECC, MECC did not reduce the incidence of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and renal failure but did significantly decrease the composite of these outcomes (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.81; P = .0002). MECC was also associated with reductions in arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.83; P = .0003), blood loss (mean difference [MD], –96.37 mL; 95% CI, –152.70 to –40.05 mL; P = .0008), hospital stay (MD, –0.70 days; 95% CI, –1.21 to –0.20 days; P = .006), and intensive care unit stay (MD, –2.27 hours; 95% CI, –3.03 to –1.50 hours; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: MECC demonstrates clinical benefits compared with CECC. Further studies are required to perform a cost–utility analysis and to assess the long-term outcomes of MECC. These should use standardized definitions of endpoints such as mortality and renal failure to reduce inconsistency in outcome reporting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9390465
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93904652022-08-23 Conventional versus miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis Cheng, Timothy Barve, Rajas Cheng, Yeu Wah Michael Ravendren, Andrew Ahmed, Amna Toh, Steven Goulden, Christopher J. Harky, Amer JTCVS Open Adult: Perioperative Management OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the effects of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) on morbidity and mortality rates after cardiac surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials from the year 2000 with n > 40 patients were considered. Key search terms included variations of “mini,” “cardiopulmonary,” “bypass,” “extracorporeal,” “perfusion,” and “circuit.” Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcomes were postoperative mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, renal failure, blood loss, and a composite outcome comprised of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and renal failure. Duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay was also recorded. RESULTS: The 42 studies eligible for this study included a total of 2154 patients who underwent CECC and 2196 patients who underwent MECC. There were no significant differences in any preoperative or demographic characteristics. Compared with CECC, MECC did not reduce the incidence of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and renal failure but did significantly decrease the composite of these outcomes (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.81; P = .0002). MECC was also associated with reductions in arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.83; P = .0003), blood loss (mean difference [MD], –96.37 mL; 95% CI, –152.70 to –40.05 mL; P = .0008), hospital stay (MD, –0.70 days; 95% CI, –1.21 to –0.20 days; P = .006), and intensive care unit stay (MD, –2.27 hours; 95% CI, –3.03 to –1.50 hours; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: MECC demonstrates clinical benefits compared with CECC. Further studies are required to perform a cost–utility analysis and to assess the long-term outcomes of MECC. These should use standardized definitions of endpoints such as mortality and renal failure to reduce inconsistency in outcome reporting. Elsevier 2021-10-01 /pmc/articles/PMC9390465/ /pubmed/36004169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xjon.2021.09.037 Text en © 2021 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Adult: Perioperative Management
Cheng, Timothy
Barve, Rajas
Cheng, Yeu Wah Michael
Ravendren, Andrew
Ahmed, Amna
Toh, Steven
Goulden, Christopher J.
Harky, Amer
Conventional versus miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Conventional versus miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Conventional versus miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Conventional versus miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Conventional versus miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Conventional versus miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort conventional versus miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Adult: Perioperative Management
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9390465/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36004169
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xjon.2021.09.037
work_keys_str_mv AT chengtimothy conventionalversusminiaturizedcardiopulmonarybypassasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT barverajas conventionalversusminiaturizedcardiopulmonarybypassasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chengyeuwahmichael conventionalversusminiaturizedcardiopulmonarybypassasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ravendrenandrew conventionalversusminiaturizedcardiopulmonarybypassasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ahmedamna conventionalversusminiaturizedcardiopulmonarybypassasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT tohsteven conventionalversusminiaturizedcardiopulmonarybypassasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gouldenchristopherj conventionalversusminiaturizedcardiopulmonarybypassasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT harkyamer conventionalversusminiaturizedcardiopulmonarybypassasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis