Premium
Total arterial revascularization strategies: A meta‐analysis of propensity score‐matched observational studies
Author(s) -
Urso Stefano,
Sadaba Rafael,
González Jesús María,
Nogales Eliú,
Pettinari Matteo,
Tena María Ángeles,
Paredes Federico,
Portela Francisco
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
journal of cardiac surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.428
H-Index - 58
eISSN - 1540-8191
pISSN - 0886-0440
DOI - 10.1111/jocs.14169
Subject(s) - medicine , hazard ratio , propensity score matching , tar (computing) , confidence interval , meta analysis , relative risk , surgery , cardiology , computer science , programming language
Background and Aim of the Study We explored the current evidence available on total arterial revascularization (TAR) carrying out a meta‐analysis of propensity score‐matched studies comparing TAR versus non‐TAR strategy. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for propensity score‐matched studies comparing TAR vs non‐TAR. The generic inverse variance method was used to compute the combined hazard ratio (HR) of long‐term mortality. The Der‐Simonian and Laird method were used to compute the combined risk ratio (RR) of 30‐day mortality, deep sternal wound infection, and reoperation for bleeding. Results Eighteen TAR vs non‐TAR matched populations were included. Meta‐analysis showed a significant benefit in terms of long‐term survival of the TAR group over the non‐TAR group (HR: 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68‐0.78). Better long‐term survival over non‐TAR strategy was confirmed by both subgroups: TAR with the bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) and TAR without BIMA. Meta‐regression suggests that TAR may offer a higher protective survival effect in diabetic patients (coefficient: −0.0063; 95% CI: −0.01 to 0.0006), when carried out with BIMA (coefficient: −0.15; 95% CI: −0.27 to −0.03) or using three arterial conduits (coefficient: −0.12; 95% CI: −0.25 to 0.007). A TAR strategy carried out using BIMA, differently from TAR without BIMA, increases the risk of deep sternal infection (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17‐1.77). Conclusions TAR provides a long‐term survival benefit compared with the non‐TAR strategy. Also, compared with TAR without BIMA, TAR with BIMA may offer a higher protective long‐term survival effect at the expense of a higher risk of sternal deep wound infection.