Background
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is performed both without and with cardiopulmonary bypass, referred to as off‐pump and on‐pump CABG respectively. However, the preferable technique ...is unclear.
Objectives
To assess the benefits and harms of off‐pump versus on‐pump CABG in patients with ischaemic heart disease.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2011), MEDLINE (OVID, 1950 to February 2011), EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to February 2011), Science Citation Index Expanded on ISI Web of Science (1970 to February 2011) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost, 1981 to February 2011) on 2 February 2011. No language restrictions were applied.
Selection criteria
Randomised clinical trials of off‐pump versus on‐pump CABG irrespective of language, publication status and blinding were selected for inclusion.
Data collection and analysis
For statistical analysis of dichotomous data risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used for analysis to assess the risk of random error due to sparse data and to multiple updating of accumulating data.
Main results
Eighty‐six trials (10,716 participants) were included. Ten trials (4,950 participants) were considered to be low risk of bias. Pooled analysis of all trials showed that off‐pump CABG increased all‐cause mortality compared with on‐pump CABG (189/5,180 (3.7%) versus 160/5144 (3.1%); RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.53; P =.04). In the trials at low risk of bias the effect was corroborated (154/2,485 (6.2%) versus 113/2,465 (4.5%), RR 1.35,95% CI 1.07 to 1.70; P =.01). TSA showed that the risk of random error on the result was unlikely. Off‐pump CABG resulted in fewer distal anastomoses (MD ‐0.28; 95% CI ‐0.40 to ‐0.16, P <.00001). No significant differences in myocardial infarction, stroke, renal insufficiency, or coronary re‐intervention were observed. Off‐pump CABG reduced post‐operative atrial fibrillation compared with on‐pump CABG, however, in trials at low risk of bias, the estimated effect was not significantly different.
Authors' conclusions
Our systematic review did not demonstrate any significant benefit of off‐pump compared with on‐pump CABG regarding mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction. In contrast, we observed better long‐term survival in the group of patients undergoing on‐pump CABG with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest. Based on the current evidence, on‐pump CABG should continue to be the standard surgical treatment. However, off‐pump CABG may be acceptable when there are contraindications for cannulation of the aorta and cardiopulmonary bypass. Further randomised clinical trials should address the optimal treatment in such patients.
A total of 2203 patients at 18 medical centers were randomly assigned to undergo on-pump or off-pump CABG. Mortality at 5 years was significantly lower with on-pump CABG than with off-pump CABG. No ...secondary outcomes indicated a benefit of off-pump surgery.
Despite several studies comparing off- and on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the effectiveness and outcomes of off-pump CABG still remain uncertain.
In this registry-based study, we ...assessed 8163 patients who underwent isolated CABG between 2014 and 2016. Propensity score matching (PSM), inverse probability of weighting (IPW) and covariate adjustment were performed to correct for and minimize selection bias.
The overall mean age of the patients was 62 years, and 25.7% were women. Patients who underwent off-pump CABG had shorter length of hospitalization (p < 0.001), intubation time (p = 0.003) and length of ICU admission (p < 0.001). Off-pump CABG was associated with higher risk of 30-days mortality (OR: 1.7; 95% CI 1.09-2.65; p = 0.019) in unadjusted analysis. After covariate adjustment and matching (PSM and IPW), this difference was not statistically significant. After an average of 36.1 months follow-up, risk of MACCE and all-cause mortality didn't have significant differences in both surgical methods by adjusting with IPW (HR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.87-1.24; p = 0.714; HR: 0.91; 95% CI 0.73-1.14; p = 578, respectively).
Off-pump and on-pump techniques have similar 30-day mortality (adjusted, PSM and IPW). Off-pump surgery is probably more cost-effective in short term; however, mid-term survival and MACCE trends in both surgical methods are comparable.
After 5 years of follow-up in this trial, the rates of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, or repeat revascularization were similar with off-pump and on-pump ...CABG. There was also no significant difference in cost or in quality of life.
Coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduces the risk of death in patients with extensive coronary artery disease.
1
CABG is usually performed with the use of a cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump CABG). With this approach, perioperative mortality is approximately 2%, with an additional 5 to 9% of patients having myocardial infarction, stroke, or renal failure requiring dialysis. The technique of performing CABG on a beating heart (off-pump CABG) was developed to decrease the risk of perioperative complications and to improve long-term outcomes; some complications, both perioperative and long term, may be related to the use of cardiopulmonary bypass and to cross-clamping of the . . .
Abstract Objectives To assess the benefits and risks of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials ...(RCTs), and to investigate the relationship between outcomes and patient risk profile. Methods PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and major conference proceedings databases were searched for RCTs comparing OPCAB and CABG and reporting short-term (≤30 days) outcomes. Endpoints assessed were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and cerebral stroke. Results The meta-analysis included 100 studies, with a total of 19,192 subjects. There was no difference between the 2 techniques with respect to all-cause mortality and MI (odds ratio OR, 0.88; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.71-1.09; P = .25; I2 = 0% and OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.05; P = .19; I2 = 0%, respectively). OPCAB was associated with a significant 28% reduction in the odds of cerebral stroke (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .009; I2 = 0%). A significant relationship between patient risk profile and benefits from OPCAB was found in terms of all-cause mortality ( P < .01), MI ( P < .01), and cerebral stroke ( P < .01). Conclusions OPCAB is associated with a significant reduction in the odds of cerebral stroke compared with conventional CABG. In addition, benefits of OPCAB in terms of death, MI, and cerebral stroke are significantly related to patient risk profile, suggesting that OPCAB should be strongly considered in high-risk patients.
PURPOSE OF REVIEWCoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of care for patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease. However, conventional CABG utilizing left internal ...mammary artery and supplemental vein grafts performed on cardiopulmonary bypass is marred by questionable long-term patency of vein grafts and risk of neurological injury. Total arterial off-pump CABG is a strategy associated with avoidance of neurological injury and vein graft failure. The aim of this review is to summarize recent evidence on safety and effectiveness of total arterial off-pump CABG.
RECENT FINDINGSTwo key studies have been published recently. One describes a dual inflow technique that achieves anaortic, off-pump complete revascularization using arterial grafts only. The other is single centre study that reports 10-year survival of 89.33%, rate of freedom from repeat revascularization of 91.33% and early stroke rate of 0.9% after total arterial off-pump CABG.
SUMMARYTotal arterial off-pump CABG with its advantages of improved survival, enhanced freedom from repeat revascularization and low stroke rate can be regarded as the Holy Grail of myocardial revascularization. However, the results of a large, multicenter, prospective trial are required to substantiate this status.
Background The debate on the relative benefits of off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery ( OPCABG and ONCABG ) is still open. We aimed to provide an updated and complete summary of the ...evidence on the differences between OPCABG and ONCABG and to explore whether the length of the follow-up and the surgeons' experience in OPCABG modify the comparative results. Methods and Results All randomized clinical trials comparing OPCABG and ONCABG were included. Primary outcome was follow-up mortality. Secondary outcomes were operative mortality, perioperative stroke, perioperative myocardial infarction, and late repeated revascularization. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the length of the follow-up and the percentage of crossover from the OPCABG group (used as a surrogate of surgeon experience with OPCABG ). One hundred four trials were included (20 627 patients, OPCABG : 10 288; ONCABG : 10 339). Weighted mean follow-up time was 3.7 years (range 1-7.5 years). OPCABG was associated with a higher risk of follow-up mortality (incidence rate ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.23, P=0.05). The difference was significant only for trials with mean follow-up of ≥3 years and for studies with a crossover rate of ≥10%. There was a trend toward lower risk of perioperative stroke and higher need for late repeated revascularization in the OPCABG arm. Conclusions OPCABG is associated with a higher incidence of incomplete revascularization, an increased need for repeated revascularization, and decreased midterm survival compared with ONCABG . Surgeon inexperience in OPCABG is associated with late mortality.
Objective Our objective was to compare off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery carried out via a left anterolateral thoracotomy (ThoraCAB) or via a conventional median sternotomy (OPCAB). Background ...Recent advances in minimally invasive cardiac surgery have extended the technique to allow complete surgical revascularization on the beating heart via thoracotomy. Methods Patients undergoing nonemergency primary surgery were enrolled between February 2007 and September 2009 at 2 centers. The primary outcome was the time from surgery to fitness for hospital discharge as defined by objective criteria. Results A total of 93 patients were randomized to off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery via a median sternotomy (OPCAB) and 91 to off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery via a left anterolateral thoracotomy (ThoraCAB). The surgery was longer for patients in the ThoraCAB group (median, 4.1 vs 3.3 hours) and there were fewer with more than 3 grafts (2% vs 17%). The median time from surgery to fitness for discharge was 6 days (interquartile range, 4-7) in the ThoraCAB group versus 5 days (interquartile range, 4-7) in the OPCAB group ( P = .53). The intubation time was shorter, by on average 65 minutes, in the ThoraCAB group ( P = .017), although the time in intensive care was similar ( P = .91). Pain scores were similar ( P = .97), but more analgesia was required in the ThoraCAB group (median duration, 38.8 vs 35.5 hours, P < .001; tramadol use, 66% vs 49%, P = .024). ThoraCAB was associated with significantly worse lung function at discharge (average difference, −0.25 L, P = .01) but quality of life scores at 3 and 12 months were similar ( P = .52). The average total cost was 10% higher with ThoraCAB ( P = .007). Conclusions ThoraCAB resulted in no overall clinical benefit relative to OPCAB.
Varying definitions of procedural myocardial infarction (PMI) are in widespread use.
This study sought to determine the rates and clinical relevance of PMI using different definitions in patients ...with left main coronary artery disease randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial.
The pre-specified protocol definition of PMI (PMIProt) required a large elevation of creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB), with identical threshold for both procedures. The Third Universal Definition of MI (types 4a and 5) (PMIUD) required lesser biomarker elevations but with supporting evidence of myocardial ischemia, different after PCI and CABG. For the PMIUD, troponins were used preferentially (available in 49.5% of patients), CK-MB otherwise. The multivariable relationship between each PMI type and 5-year mortality was determined.
PMIProt occurred in 34 of 935 (3.6%) patients after PCI and 56 of 923 (6.1%) patients after CABG (difference −2.4%; 95% confidence interval CI: −4.4% to −0.5%; p = 0.015). The corresponding rates of PMIUD were 37 (4.0%) and 20 (2.2%), respectively (difference 1.8%; 95% CI: 0.2% to 3.4%; p = 0.025). Both PMIProt and PMIUD were associated with 5-year cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio HR: 2.18 95% CI: 1.13 to 4.23 and 2.87 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.73, respectively). PMIProt was associated with a consistent hazard of cardiovascular mortality after both PCI and CABG (pinteraction = 0.86). Conversely, PMIUD was strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality after CABG (adjusted HR: 11.94; 95% CI: 4.84 to 29.47) but not after PCI (adjusted HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.35 to 3.67) (pinteraction = 0.004). Results were similar for all-cause mortality and with varying PMIUD biomarker definitions. Only large biomarker elevations (CK-MB ≥10× upper reference limit and troponin ≥70× upper reference limit) were associated with mortality.
The rates of PMI after PCI and CABG vary greatly with different definitions. In the EXCEL trial, the pre-specified PMIProt was associated with similar hazard after PCI and CABG, whereas PMIUD was strongly associated with mortality after CABG but not after PCI. (EXCEL Clinical Trial EXCEL; NCT01205776)
Display omitted
PDF
