• Sally Spencer, Augustine Tang, and Espeed Khoshbin.
• Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK. s.spencer1@lancaster.ac.uk.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 1;7:CD009507.

BackgroundThere is some evidence for the benefits of leukodepletion in patients undergoing coronary artery surgery. Its effectiveness in higher risk patients, such as those undergoing heart valve surgery, particularly in terms of overall clinical outcomes, is currently unclear.ObjectivesTo assess the beneficial and harmful effects of leukodepletion on clinical, patient-reported and economic outcomes in patients undergoing heart valve surgery.Search MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 3 of 12) in The Cochrane Library, the NHS Economic Evaluations Database (1960 to April 2013), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April week 2 2013), EMBASE Ovid (1947 to Week 15 2013), CINAHL (1982 to April 2013) and Web of Science (1970 to 17 April 2013) on 19 April 2013. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) clinical trials database and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN) in April 2013 for ongoing studies. No language or time period restrictions were applied. We examined the reference lists of all included randomised controlled trials and contacted authors of identified trials. We searched the 'grey' literature at OpenGrey and handsearched relevant conference proceedings.Selection CriteriaRandomised controlled trials comparing a leukocyte-depleting arterial line filter with a standard arterial line filter, on the arterial outflow of the heart-lung bypass circuit, in elective patients undergoing heart valve surgery.Data Collection And AnalysisData were collected on the study characteristics, three primary outcomes (1. post-operative in-hospital all-cause mortality within three months, 2. post-operative all-cause mortality excluding inpatient mortality < 30 days, 3. length of stay in hospital, 4. adverse events and serious adverse events) and seven secondary outcomes (1. tubular or glomerular kidney injury, 2. validated health-related quality of life scales, 3. validated renal injury scales, 4. use of continuous veno-venous haemo-filtration, 5. length of stay in intensive care, 6. costs of care). Data were extracted by one author and verified by a second author. Insufficient data were available to perform a meta-analysis or sensitivity analysis.Main ResultsEight studies were eligible for inclusion in the review but data on prespecified review outcomes were available from only one, modestly powered (24 participants) study (Hurst 1997). There were no differences between a leuko-depleting versus standard filter in length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) (mean difference (MD) 0.80 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.24 to 1.84) or length of hospital stay (MD 0.20 days; 95% CI -1.78 to 2.18).Authors' ConclusionsThere are currently insufficient good quality trials with valve surgery patients to inform recommendations for changes in clinical practice. A future National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded feasibility study (recruiting mid-year 2013) comparing leukodepletion with a standard arterial line filter in patients undergoing elective heart valve surgery (the ROLO trial) will be the largest study to date and will make a significant contribution to future updates of this review.

11 keywords...

hide…