|
Our objective is to assess whether the presence of myocardial viability is a predictor of mortality among patients undergoing coronary artery bypasss grafting (CABG) through a systematic review meta-analysis. Comprehensive review of EMBASE and PubMed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, including studies of patients undergoing CABG with assessment of myocardial viability and recorded long-term mortality, age and sex. Studies were restricted to the last decade, and data were stratified by imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or nuclear medicine). Random-effects model for assessing pooled effect, heterogeneity assessment using Chi-square and I2 statistics, publication bias assessed by funnel plots and Egger's test. Meta-analysis of contemporary data (January 2010 to October 2020) yielded 3,621 manuscripts of which 92 were relevant, and 6 appropriate for inclusion with 993 patients. Pooled analysis showed that patients with non-viable myocardium undergoing CABG are at 1.34 the risk of mortality compared to those with viable myocardium (95% CI 1.01-1.79 p=0.05). Subgroup analysis of the MRI or nuclear medicine modalities was not statistically significant and there was no confounding by age or sex in meta-regression. There was significant heterogeneity in imaging modality and diagnostic criteria, but heterogeneity between study findings was low with an I2 statistic of 29%. The risk of publication bias was moderate on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), but not statistically significant (Egger's Test coefficient=1.3 95%CI -0.35-2.61 p=0.10). There's a multitude of methods for assessing cardiac viability for coronary revascularisation surgery, making meta-analyses fraught with limitations. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that the finding of non-viable myocardium can not be used draw conclusions for risk assessment in coronary surgery. |
|
