3.8 Review

Early Outcomes of Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome Infants: Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing the Hybrid and Norwood Procedures

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2150135117752896

关键词

hypoplastic left heart syndrome; Norwood procedure; hybrid procedure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hybrid strategy is an alternative to the traditional Norwood procedure for initial palliation of infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) who are deemed to be at high surgical risk. Numerous single-center studies have compared the two procedures, showing similar early outcomes, although the cohort sizes are likely insufficiently powered to detect significant differences. The current meta-analysis aims to explore the early morbidity and mortality associated with the hybrid compared to the Norwood procedure. MEDLINE, Cochrane Libraries, and Embase were systematically searched, and 14 studies were included for statistical synthesis, comprising 263 hybrid and 426 Norwood patients. Early mortality was significantly higher in the hybrid patients (relative risk [RR] = 1.54, P < .05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-2.34), whereas interstage mortality was comparable between the two groups (RR = 0.88, P > .05, 95% CI: 0.46-1.70). Six-month (RR = 0.89, P < .05, 95% CI: 0.80-1.00) and one-year (RR = 0.88, P < .05, 95% CI: 0.78-1.00) transplant-free survival was also inferior among the hybrid patients. Furthermore, the hybrid patients required more reinterventions following initial surgical palliation (RR = 1.48, P < .05, 95% CI: 1.09-2.01), although the two groups had comparable length of hospital and intensive care unit stay postoperatively. In conclusion, our results suggest that the hybrid procedure is associated with worse early survival compared to the traditional Norwood when used for initial palliation of infants with HLHS. However, due to the hybrid being used preferentially for high-risk patients, definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of the procedure cannot be drawn.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据