CORE
🇺🇦
make metadata, not war
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Community governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Minimally Invasive Surgery vs Device Closure for Atrial Septal Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Authors
K.S. Mylonas Ziogas, I.A. Evangeliou, A. Hemmati, P. Schizas, D. Sfyridis, P.G. Economopoulos, K.P. Bakoyiannis, C. Kapelouzou, A. Tzifa, A. Avgerinos, D.V.
Publication date
1 January 2020
Publisher
Abstract
Device closure is the first-line treatment for most atrial septal defects (ASDs). Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) has been found safe and effective for ASD closure with comparable mortality/morbidity and superior cosmetic results compared to conventional median sternotomy. Our goal was to compare percutaneous versus MICS of ASDs. A systematic review was performed using PubMed and the Cochrane Library (end-of-search date on May 22, 2019). Meta-analyses were conducted using fixed and random effects models. In the present systematic review, we analyzed six studies including 1577 patients with ASDs who underwent either MICS (n = 642) or device closure (n = 935). Treatment efficacy was significantly higher in the MICS (99.8%; 95% CI 98.9–99.9) compared to the device closure group (97.3%; 95% CI 95.6–98.2), (OR 0.1; 95% CI 0.02–0.6). Surgical patients experienced significantly more complications (16.2%; 95% CI 13.0–19.9) compared to those that were treated with a percutaneous approach (7.1%; 95% CI 5.0–9.8), (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2–3.2). Surgery was associated with significantly longer length of hospital stay (5.6 ± 1.7 days) compared to device closure (1.3 ± 1.4 days), (OR 4.8; 95% CI 1.1–20.5). Residual shunts were more common with the transcatheter (3.9%; 95% CI 2.7–5.5) compared to the surgical approach (0.95%; 95% CI 0.3–2.4), (OR 0.1; 95% CI 0.06–0.5). There was no difference between the two techniques in terms of major bleeding, hematoma formation, transfusion requirements, cardiac tamponade, new-onset atrial fibrillation, permanent pacemaker placement, and reoperation rates. MICS for ASD is a safe procedure and compares favorably to transcatheter closure. Despite longer hospitalization requirements, the MICS approach is feasible irrespective of ASD anatomy and may lead to a more effective and durable repair. © 2020, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
Similar works
Full text
Available Versions
Pergamos : Unified Institutional Repository / Digital Library Platform of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:lib.uoa.gr:uoadl:3121088
Last time updated on 10/02/2023