1.The clinical analysis of 142 cases of minimally invasive transthoracic device closure of ventricular septal defect
Guoliang LU ; Lunchao MA ; Chao YANG ; Yingyuan ZHANG ; Shaobo XIE
The Journal of Practical Medicine 2015;(8):1294-1295
Objective To summarize the minimally invasive transthoracic ventricular septal defect (VSD) occlusion operation experience in the clinical application. Methods 142 VSD patients (admitted from August, 2013 to October, 2014) were chosen. All patients were treated with minimally invasive transthoracic device closure under the monitoring of transoesophageal echocardiogram. Results 136 cases received successful closure, and 6 cases still need CPB conventional extracorporeal circulation operation. After follow-up for 3 ~ 12 months for 102 patients, 16 cases remain residual shunt. Conclusion The short-term therapeutic effect of minimally invasive transthoracic device closure of VSD is satisfying. However , the long-term follow-up remains to be studied.
2.Efficacy of transthoracic device closure versus traditional surgical repair on atrial septal defects: A systematic review and meta-analysis
LAI Wenhao ; XIE Shaobo ; KUANG Suhua ; LU Guoliang ; HUANG Jiezhou ; MA Lunchao
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2019;26(8):795-804
Objective To compare the effects of transthoracic device closure and traditional surgical repair on atrial septal defect systemically. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, VIP, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang Database up to July 31, 2018 to identify trials according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality was assessed and data of included articles were extracted. The meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software. Results Thirty studies were identified, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 27 cohort studies involving 3 321 patients. For success rate, the transthoracic closure group was lower than that in the surgical repair group (CCT, OR=0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.69, P=0.003). There was no statistical difference in mortality between the two groups (CCT, OR=0.43, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.52, P=0.19). Postoperative complication occurred less frequently in the transthoracic closure group than that in the surgical repair group (RCT, OR=0.30, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.77, P=0.01; CCT, OR=0.27, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.42, P<0.000 01). The risk of postoperative arrhythmia in the transthoracic closure group was lower than that in the surgical repair group (CCT, OR=0.56, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.90, P=0.02). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative residual shunt in postoperative one month (CCT, OR=4.52, 95%CI 0.45 to 45.82, P=0.20) and in postoperative one year (CCT, OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.29 to 3.68, P=0.97) between the two groups. Although the duration of operation (RCT MD=–55.90, 95%CI –58.69 to –53.11, P<0.000 01; CCT MD=–71.68, 95%CI -– 79.70 to –63.66, P<0.000 01), hospital stay (CCT, MD=–3.31, 95%CI –4.16, –2.46, P<0.000 01) and ICU stay(CCT, MD=–10.15, 95%CI –14.38 to –5.91, P<0.000 01), mechanical ventilation (CCT, MD=–228.68, 95%CI –247.60 to
– 209.77, P<0.000 01) in the transthoracic closure group were lower than those in the traditional surgical repair group, the transthoracic closure costed more than traditional surgical repair during being in the hospital (CCT, MD=1 221.42, 95%CI 1 124.70 to 1 318.14, P<0.000 01). Conclusion Compared with traditional surgical repair, the transthoracic closure reduces the hospital stay, shortens the length of ICU stay and the duration of ventilator assisted ventilation, while has less postoperative complications. It is safe and reliable for patients with ASD within the scope of indication.