SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Is the superior septal approach a safe alternative to conventional left atriotomy for mitral valve surgery? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe superior septal approach (SSA) was developed to improve mitral valve exposure during surgery, particularly in patients with complex anatomy. However, concerns regarding prolonged operative times and rhythm disturbances have limited its widespread adoption. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare SSA with conventional left atriotomy (CLA) in terms of perioperative outcomes, complications, rhythm disturbances, and mortality.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed up to August 2025 according to PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes assessed included postoperative cardiac rhythm outcomes (primary outcomes), perioperative metrics (secondary outcomes) -including pacemaker implantation, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and hospital stay, and complications (safety outcomes). Pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model.
resultsA total of 12 cohort studies were included. Postoperative sinus rhythm (RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.71–1.04) and atrial fibrillation (AF) (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.83–1.49) did not differ between SSA and CLA; junctional rhythm and complete atrioventricular block (AVB) were also comparable. Within-group (pre–post) analyses showed sinus rhythm increased after both techniques, more with SSA (RR = 1.36) than CLA (RR = 1.20), while AF changes were non-significant. Meta-regression indicated more recent publication year and higher repair (vs. replacement) proportion were associated with greater sinus rhythm benefit favoring SSA. Secondary outcomes were similar overall; pacemaker implantation was borderline higher after SSA and became significant in sensitivity analysis. Safety endpoints were also comparable between approaches.
conclusionThe SSA provides equivalent perioperative efficiency and clinical safety compared with CLA in mitral valve surgery. Concerns about rhythm disturbances and operative burden are not supported by pooled evidence, suggesting that SSA remains a safe and valuable option, particularly in cases requiring enhanced exposure. Further high-quality prospective studies are warranted to define long-term outcomes and refine patient selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.