Long-Term Pulmonary Vascular Reactivity After Orthotopic Heart Transplantation by the Biatrial Versus the Bicaval Technique

A comparison of the results of the bicaval and biatrial surgical technique in orthotopic heart transplantation: A review and meta-analysis

“…The meta-analysis results of all the significant studies are shown in Table 2-9. [2,7,8,10,11,[13][14][15][16][17][18][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][31][32][33][34][35]37,38,40,41,44] Park et al [21] 2005 RS South Korea 25 13 Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann Aziz et al [7] 1999 PNRCT UK 96 105 J Thorac Cardivasc Surg Solomon et al [22] 2004 RS New Zealand 37 38 Heart Lung Circ Sarsam et al [11] 1993 PRCT UK 20 20 J Card Surg el Gamel et al [13] 1995 PRCT UK 40 35 J Thorac Cardivasc Surg Traversi et al [23] 1998 NRCT Italy 22 27 J Heart Lung Transplant Kalra et al [43] 2010 RS USA 56 57 Echocardiography Sievers et al [10] 1994 PRCT Germany 8 10 J Thorac Cardivasc Surg Meyer et al [17] 2005 RS Canada 41 34 Can J Cardiol Leyh et al [14] 1995 PRCT Germany 15 12 Ann Thorac Surg Grant et al [18] 1995 PS UK 31 35 Br Heart...…”

“…When this occurred, patients were discharged earlier from the hospital. According to the United Network for Organ Sharing/ Organ Procurement Transplantation Network (UNOS/ OPTN) multivariable analysis results published by Cantillon et al [19] in 2010, it was reported that the bicaval surgical technique was a powerful protector against the Beniaminovitz et al [8] 0.64 0.101-4.097 -0.47 0.640 6.68 3/10 4/108 Traversi et al [23] 0.11 0.013-0.990 -1.97 0.049 5.25 1/22 8/27 el Gamel et al [41] 0.24 0.076-0.772 -2.40 0.017 12.06 5/40 13/35 Riberi et al [33] 0 [29] 0.16 0.017-1.500 -1.60 0.108 4.95 1/20 5/20 Solomon et al [22] 3.16 0.125-80.193 0.70 0.485 2.67 1/37 0/38 Meyer et al [17] 1 [32] 0.83 0.325-2.105 -0.40 0.690 14.77 27/41 28/40 Grant et al [18] 0.29 0.014-6.288 -0.78 0.432 2.93 0/34 2/52 Sun et al [38] 0 [7] -1.46 -1.777 to -1.154 -9.21 0.000 15.58 4.4/4 10.9/4.8 Wang et al [30] -0.58 -1.126 to -0.028 -2.06 0.039 14.55 11/1 12/2 Sarsam et al [11] -2.13 -2.911 to -1.358 -5.38 0.000 13.26 4.9/2.1 9.6/2.3 Deleuze et al [32] -0.07 -0.464 to -0.314 -0.37 0.705 15.29 12.6/7 13/4 Blanche et al [26] -1.39 -1.031 to -7.557 -7.55 0.000 15.40 4/1 6/2 Fiorelli et al [37] -2. Davies et al [20] 0.776 0.732-0.822 -8.60 0.000 98.26 3264/7661 5828/11919 Sun et al [38] 0 need for a postoperative pacemaker.…”