Comparative efficacy of five surgical methods in the treatment of mitral regurgitation: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Issue 1 (17th October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Huang, Weimin; Hou, Biao; Li, Qin; Zhang, Yuhai; Wang, Liang
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiac surgery. Volume 37:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: 186
• Page End: 196
• Publication Date: 2021-10-17
• Subjects: minimally invasive surgery -- mitral valve -- network meta‐analysis -- thoracoscopy Robot surgery -- traditional thoracotomy; Heart -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.412005
• DOI: 10.1111/jocs.16085
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0886-0440

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: This study has been compared the effectiveness of different surgical methods in the treatment of mitral regurgitation (MR) in adults by using the network meta‐analysis method, so as to provide reference for clinical selection of the best surgical scheme. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Chongqing VIP Information databases were comprehensively searched until December 2020. We collected retrospective comparative studies on surgical procedures including 3D endoscopic mitral valve surgery (3D‐MVS), robot‐assisted mitral valve surgery (R‐MVS); totally thoracoscopic mitral valve surgery (T‐MVS), small incision mitral valve surgery (M‐MVS), and traditional thoracotomy mitral valve surgery (C‐MVS). Stata16.0 and Addis1.16.8 software was used for network meta‐analysis using the Bayesian approach. Results: A total of 31 studies were included, 12, 998 patients, involving five surgical methods. Network meta‐analysis showed that: in terms of complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.13–3.00, probability rank = 0.37) and MR (OR: 0.03, 95% CI: 0.0–8315, probability rank = 0.64), the 3D‐MVS group had the lowest event rate. In terms of blood transfusion rate (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.16–1.84, probability rank = 0.45), T‐MVS had the lowest event rate. In addition, with the exception of operation time and chest drainage, the R‐MVS group has the best curative effect. Conclusion: This minimally invasive surgery has their own advantages and disadvantages. Overall, 3D‐MVS is most satisfactory, but more samples are needed.