A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Midterm Results Comparing Perventricular Device Closure with Surgical Repair for Isolated Congenital Ventricular Septal Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. | LitMetric

Midterm Results Comparing Perventricular Device Closure with Surgical Repair for Isolated Congenital Ventricular Septal Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Rev Cardiovasc Med

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute, Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of South China Structural Heart Disease, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, 510260 Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Published: August 2022

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at comparing the midterm outcomes of perventricular device closure (PDC) with conventional surgical repair (CSR) for VSD.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from January 1, 2005, to October 15, 2020, for English or Chinese language studies comparing outcomes of PDC with CSR for VSD. The midterm results were assessed as a primary outcome. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed under the frequentist frame with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: A total of 4381 patients (PDC = 2016, CSR = 2365) from 15 studies were included. The pooled estimates of success rate favored the CSR compared with the PDC (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96 to 0.99; = 0.001). No significant differences in minor complications or severe complications were found between the PDC and CSR (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.23; = 0.29; RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.75; = 0.29). The pooled estimates of residual shunts favored the PDC compared with the CSR (RR, 9.07; 95% CI, 4.77 to 17.24; 0.001), the pooled estimates of aortic regurgitation favored the CSR compared with the PDC (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.39; = 0.03).

Conclusions: PDC is a safe and effective procedure with less surgical injury and shorter perioperative hospital stay. However, aortic regurgitation is a concern during follow-up.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11266945PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2308262DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

systematic review
12
review meta-analysis
12
pooled estimates
12
perventricular device
8
device closure
8
surgical repair
8
pdc
8
pdc csr
8
favored csr
8
csr compared
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!