Objective To systematically review the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with single-vessel disease of the left anterior descending artery (LAD). Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2015), PubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP were searched electronically from inception to Oct. 2015, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about MIDCAB versus PCI for single-vessel disease of the LAD. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. Results A total of 10 RCTs including 1 489 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with the PCI group, the MIDCAB group could significantly reduce the incidence of postoperative target vessel revascularization (OR=0.20，95%CI 0.13 to 2.29，P < 0.000 01), and the incidence of main adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (OR=0.44, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.58, P < 0.000 01). No significant differences were found between the two groups in total case mortality (OR=1.23, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.83, P=0.31), cardiogenic death (OR=1.12, 95%CI 0.59 to 2.12, P=0.73), and the incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction (OR=2.16, 95%CI 0.83 to 5.59, P=0.11). Conclusion In reducing the incidences of postoperative target vessels again revascularization and MACCE of patients with single-vessel disease of the LAD, MIDCAB is superior to PCI. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusion still needs to be verified by carrying out more high-quality RCTs.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of totally thorascopic (TT) and median sternotomy (MS) approaches for atrial septal defect repair (ASDR). MethodsDatabases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2016), PubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP were electronically searched from inception to June 2016, to collect randomized controlled trials or cohort studies about TT vs. MS approaches for ASDR. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 11 cohort studies involving 687 patients were included with 305 patients in the TT group, and 382 patients in the MS group. The results of meta-analysis showed that: The TT group had shorter postoperative ventilation time (MD=-1.49, 95%CI -2.27 to -0.71, P=0.000 2), postoperative ICU stay time (MD=-7.30, 95%CI -12.07 to -2.53, P=0.003), hospital stay time (MD=-2.06, 95%CI -2.80 to -1.32, P<0.000 01) and less postoperative drainage (MD=-199.83, 95%CI -325.96 to -73.70, P=0.002) than the MS group. But the bypass time (MD=9.42, 95%CI 1.55 to 17.30, P=0.02) and aortic clamping time (MD 6.78, 95%CI 3.48 to 10.07, P<0.000 1) of the TT group were significantly longer than those of the MS group. ConclusionCompared with MS, TT can significantly reduce the length of postoperative ventilation, postoperative ICU stay, hospital stay and postoperative drainage. But there are risks of prolonged bypass time and aortic clamping time in the TT group. Due to the quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions still needs to be verified by carrying out more studies.
Objective To analyze the clinical efficacy of totally thoracoscopic surgery and conventional thoracotomy in repair of ventricular septal defect (VSD). Methods We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 50 VSD patients admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from January 2015 to January 2017. According to the surgical pattern, they were divided into two groups: a totally thoracoscopic surgery group (21 patients, 13 males, 8 females, aged 38.36±10.02 years), and a thoracotomy group (29 patients, 18 males, 11 females, aged 42.36±13.02 years). The operation time, hospital stay, ventilator-assisted time and thoracic drainage were compared between the two groups. Results There was no death in two groups. In the thoracoscopic group the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time and the aortic clamping time were longer than those of the thoracotomy group (P<0.05), but postoperative drainage, patients with postoperative use of blood products and postoperative hospital stay were less (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in operation time, postoperative ventilator-assisted time or duration of ICU stay. Conclusion Compared with the conventional thoracotomy, totally thoracoscopic VSD repair with less trauma, quicker recovery and less blood use, is safe and reliable and can be used as a preferred surgical intervention.