ObjectiveTo compare short-term outcomes of radical correction of tetralogy of Fallot (TOF)with or without transcatheter embolization of major aortopulmonary collaterals (APC). MethodsClinical data of 58 TOF patients undergoing radical correction from January 2008 to June 2013 in the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University were retrospectively analyzed. There were 36 male and 22 female patients. Among them, 22 patients (Group A, 12 males and 10 females)received radical TOF correction combined with transcatheter embolization of major APC, and 36 patients (Group B, 24 males and 12 females)received radical TOF correction alone. Average age of group A was (24.91±6.77)years and that of group B was (22.42±5.06)years. Aortic cross-clamping time, ICU stay, postoperative hospital stay, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)7 days and 3 months after the operation were compared between the 2 groups. ResultsThere was no in-hospital death. There was no statistical difference in sex, age, preoperative McGoon ratio or hemoglobin (Hb)levels between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). Aortic cross-clamping time[ (43.87±13.02)minutes vs. (53.60±11.69)minutes, P < 0.05], ICU stay[ (26.09±4.84)hours vs. (28.87±4.38)hours, P < 0.05] and postoperative hospital stay[ (12.32±1.81)days vs. (13.67±2.14)days, P < 0.05] of group A were significantly shorter than those of group B. LVEF 7 days after the operation of group A was significantly higher than that of group B (56.64%±8.19% vs. 52.58%±5.62%, P < 0.05), and there was no statistical difference in LVEF 3 months after the operation between the 2 groups (58.50%±8.78% vs. 55.42%±6.18%, P > 0.05). ConclusionFor surgical treatment of TOF, compared with radical correction alone, radical correction combined with transcatheter embolization of major APC can significantly shorten aortic cross-clamping time and improve postoperative heart function recovery.
ObjectiveTo evaluate clinical outcomes of mitral valve replacement (MVR) combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) compared with CABG alone for patients with coronary artery disease and moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR). MethodsA systematic literature search for studies which were published from January 1990 to August 2013 from PubMed, Cochrane Library, China Academic Journals Full-text Database, Wanfang Data, and VIP Journal Database and compared CABG+MVR and CABG alone for IMR patients was performed. Quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed by Jada scale. Quality of case control studies was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RevMan 5.0 was used for meta-analysis. ResultsSix clinical trials including 2 randomized controlled trials and 4 case control studies were included in this study. Jadad scale for both 2 randomized controlled trials was 5 points and NOS for all the 4 case controlled studies was 8 points. Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical difference in early postoperative mortality between the 2 groups[randomized controlled trials:RR=1.69, 95% CI (0.28, 10.10), P=0.57;case controlled studies:OR=0.48, 95% CI (0.21, 1.13), P=0.09]. There was no statistical difference in 1-year survival rate between the 2 groups[randomized controlled trials:RR=1.00, 95% CI (0.93, 1.08), P=0.92;case controlled studies:OR=1.72, 95% CI (0.60, 4.95), P=0.32]. There was no statistical difference in 5-year survival rate between the 2 groups[OR=1.12, 95% CI (0.68, 1.83), P=0.66]. LVEF of CABG+MVR patients was significantly higher than that of CABG alone patients[MD=1.38, 95% CI (0.17, 2.59), P=0.03]. Postoperative New York Heart Association (NYHA) class of CABG+MVR patients was significantly better than that of CABG alone patients[MD=-0.85, 95% CI (-1.14, -0.56), P < 0.01]. ConclusionCompared with CABG alone, MVR combined with CABG cannot significantly increase postoperative survival rate of the patients, but can improve postoperative heart function recovery and quality of life.