中国胸心血管外科临床杂志

中国胸心血管外科临床杂志

经胸微创封堵手术与传统外科修补手术治疗房间隔缺损的系统评价及 Meta 分析

查看全文

目的 系统评价经胸微创封堵手术和传统外科修补手术治疗房间隔缺损(ASD)的效果及安全性。 方法 制定原始的文献纳入标准、排除标准及检索策略,计算机检索 PubMed、EMbase、The Cochrane Library、VIP、CNKI、CBM 及万方数据库等临床对照试验,检索时间均为从建库至 2018 年 7 月,采用 RevMan5.3 软件和 Stata12.0 软件进行 Meta 分析。 结果 纳入文献 30 篇,其中 3 篇随机对照试验(RCT),27 篇队列研究(CCT),共计 3 321 例患者。 Meta 分析结果显示:在手术成功率的比较中,经胸封堵组低于传统外科修补组,差异有统计学意义[CCT,OR=0.34,95%CI(0.16,0.69),P=0.003]。而两组间手术死亡率的差异无统计学意义[CCT,OR=0.43,95%CI(0.12,1.52),P=0.19]。经胸封堵组术后并发症发生率低于传统外科修补组,差异有统计学意义[RCT,OR=0.30,95%CI(0.12,0.77),P=0.01;CCT,OR=0.27,95%CI(0.17,0.42),P<0.000 01]。两组间的术后 1 个月残余分流发生率[CCT,OR=4.52,95%CI(0.45,45.82),P=0.20]及术后 1 年残余分流发生率[CCT,OR=1.03,95%CI(0.29,3.68),P=0.97]的比较中,差异均无统计学意义。经胸封堵组的手术时间[RCT,MD=–55.90,95%CI(–58.69,–53.11),P<0.000 01;CCT,MD=–71.68,95%CI(–79.70,–63.66),P<0.000 01]、呼吸机辅助通气时间[CCT,MD=–228.68,95%CI(–247.60,–209.77),P<0.000 01]、住院时间[CCT,MD=–3.31,95%CI(–4.16,–2.46),P<0.000 01]及住 ICU 时间[CCT,MD=–10.15,95%CI(–14.38,–5.91),P<0.000 01]均低于传统手术修补组,差异有统计学意义。但是在住院费用方面,经胸封堵组高于传统手术修补组,差异有统计学意义[CCT,MD=1 221.42,95%CI(1 124.70,1 318.14),P<0.000 01]。 结论 对比传统外科修补手术,经胸微创封堵手术缩短了患者的住院时间、手术时间、 ICU 停留时长及呼吸机辅助通气时间,降低了术后并发症的发生,对于符合适应证的房间隔缺损患者,是疗效确切,安全可行的方法。

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. 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 trialRCTs and 27 cohort studies involving 3321 patients. For success rate, the transthoracic closure group was lower than 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 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 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 lower than in the surgical repair group (CCT,OR=0.56, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.90, P=0.02). There were no statistically difference in the incidence of postoperative residual shunt postoperatively one month (CCT, OR=4.52, 95%CI 0.45 to 45.82, P=0.20) and postoperatively one year (CCT, OR=1.03, 95%CI 0.29 to 3.68, P=0.97) between the groups. Although the duration of operation (RCT MD=–55.90, 95%CI –58.69 to –53.11, P<0.000 01; CCTMD=–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 transthoracic closure groups were lower than in traditional surgical repair groups, 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 Compare with traditional surgical repair, the transthoracic closure reduces the hospital stay, 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.

关键词: 房间隔缺损; 经胸微创封堵术; 传统外科修补手术; 术后并发症; Meta 分析

Key words: Atrial septal defect; transthoracic device closure; traditional surgical repair; postoperative complications; meta-analysis

登录后 ,请手动点击刷新查看图表内容。 没有账号,
1. Akagi T. Current concept of transcatheter closure of atrial septal defect in adults. J Cardiol, 2015, 65(1): 17-25.
2. King TD, Thompson SL, Steiner C, et al. Secundum atrial septal defect. Nonoperative closure during cardiac catheterization. JAMA, 1976, 235(23): 2506-2509.
3. 俞世强, 蔡振杰, 康云帆. 胸部小切口非体外循环治疗先天性心脏病房间隔缺损. 中国微创外科杂志, 2002, 2(5): 292-294.
4. 熊卫平, 罗军, 李正国. 经胸微创封堵术与体外循环直视修补术治疗房间隔缺损临床对比分析. 医药前沿, 2017, 7(21): 242-244.
5. 任明明, 韩振, 闵生辉, 等. 超声引导下外科微创封堵治疗巨大房间隔缺损的临床研究. 中国医学创新, 2015, 12(31): 42-45.
6. 李雪涛. 微创非体外循环房间隔缺损封堵术的疗效分析. 中西医结合心血管病电子杂志, 2015, 3(10): 144-145.
7. 马骏, 罗鑫, 张华炜, 等. 经胸小切口微创封堵术与经典外科手术治疗房间隔缺损的临床对比研究. 中国基层医药, 2016, 23(13): 1995-1997.
8. 刘筠, 张总刚, 唐和年, 等. 经胸非体外循环 Dasdo 技术与心脏直视手术治疗房间隔缺损的对比研究. 中国心血管病研究, 2007, 5(11): 804-806.
9. 乔俊杰. 经胸微创封堵术与传统外科手术治疗大型继发孔房间隔缺损的对比研究. 郑州大学, 2015.53.
10. 曾文, 孟旭, 张纯, 等. 继发孔房间隔缺损 3 种治疗技术的对比研究. 心肺血管病杂志, 2009, 28(1): 14-17.
11. 李才, 田作春, 朱勇德, 等. 127 例经胸微创房间隔缺损封堵术的临床应用研究. 重庆医学, 2015, 44(30): 4267-4269.
12. 唱宽, 谷天祥, 李峰. 继发孔型房间隔缺损三种术式比较分析. 宁夏医学杂志, 2014, 36(4): 323-325.
13. 尹倪, 赵天力, 杨一峰, 等. 儿童继发孔房间隔缺损经右心房微创封堵术的临床评估. 中南大学学报 (医学版), 2011, 36(6): 576-580.
14. 傅志辉. 经导管封堵术、经胸微创封堵术及胸骨正中切口修补术治疗继发孔型房间隔缺损的比较. 福建医科大学, 2015.34.
15. Zhu P, Sun Y, Yang Q, et al. Intraoperative device closure of atrial septal defects with minimal transthoracic invasion: a single-center experience. Tex Heart Inst J, 2013, 40(3): 256-260.
16. Chen Q, Cao H, Zhang GC, et al. Safety and feasibility of intra-operative device closure of atrial septal defect with transthoracic minimal invasion. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2012, 41(1): 121-125.
17. 王芯朋. 三种房间隔缺损修复术式的临床研究. 南昌大学, 2018.32.
18. 齐鲁. 小儿房间隔缺损经导管封堵、外科微创封堵和开胸修补术的结果对比分析. 山东大学, 2010.40.
19. 艾成, 陈有东, 程远建, 等. 经导管封堵术经胸微创封堵术及胸骨正中切口修补术治疗继发孔型房间隔缺损的临床疗效比较. 河北医学, 2016, (7): 1131-1133.
20. 贾明选, 刘书文, 郭亮, 等. 微创经胸房缺伞堵术治疗大直径房间隔缺损 45 例临床分析. 西南国防医药, 2015, 25(11): 1187-1189.
21. 彭旭光, 钱孟佼, 许金明, 等. 实时三维心脏超声引导下右胸切口与传统开胸体外循环下房间隔缺损手术效果的比较. 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志, 2013, 20(6): 637-641.
22. 肖宗位, 刘早阳, 李海林, 等. 经胸微创封堵术与传统外科手术治疗继发孔房间隔缺损对比研究. 中国现代医学杂志, 2009, 19(12): 1892-1894.
23. 刘于威. 微创经胸壁非体外循环房间隔缺损封堵术的临床应用. 中国老年学杂志, 2014, 34(1): 204-205.
24. 刘建国. 用经胸微创封堵术治疗小儿房间隔缺损的效果探析. 当代医药论丛, 2016, 14(22): 62-64.
25. 李巅远, 闫军, 李守军, 等. 三种不同微创技术与经典外科技术治疗房间隔缺损的临床对比研究. 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志, 2009, 16(1): 31-35.
26. 祁长敏, 高虹. 房间隔缺损三种治疗方法的比较研究. 四川医学, 2009, 30(6): 844-846.
27. Guo Z, Zhang C, Wang H, et al. Peratrial device closure of atrial septal defect under transesophageal echocardiographic guidance without fluoroscopy compared to conventional on-pump surgical closure. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg, 2017, 32(1): 38-42.
28. 张伟, 翟光地, 张芝艳, 等. 婴幼儿先天性房间隔缺损经胸微创封堵术与经皮股静脉微创封堵术及传统开胸手术的对比研究. 中国血液流变学杂志, 2017, 27(2): 200-203.
29. 李奎, 张郁林, 辜志英, 等. 食管超声引导下经胸房间隔缺损封堵术的应用研究. 东南大学学报 (医学版), 2015, 34(4): 521-524.
30. 迟立群, 张健群, 孔晴宇, 等. 60 岁以上老年继发孔型房间隔缺损的治疗策略 (附 139 例临床分析). 心肺血管病杂志, 2010, 29(2): 128-131.
31. 方骏, 韦洋, 陈旭东, 等. 超声引导下胸部微创房间隔缺损封堵术 52 例临床分析. 第三军医大学学报, 2018, 40(19): 1788-1791.
32. 李小军, 吕宏安, 刘学刚, 等. Hybrid 手术在中央型房间隔缺损修补术中的应用价值. 蚌埠医学院学报, 2012, 37(5): 535-536.
33. 康云帆. 微创经胸壁非体外循环房间隔缺损封堵术的基础与临床应用研究. 第四军医大学, 2005.119.
34. Romanelli G., Harper RW, Mottram PM Transcatheter closure of secundum atrial septal defects: results in patients with large and extreme defects. Heart Lung Circ, 2014, 23(2): 127-131.
35. Vida VL, Barnoya J, O’Connell M, et al. Surgical versus percutaneous occlusion of ostium secundum atrial septal defects: results and cost-effective considerations in a low-income country. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2006, 47(2): 326-331.