Impact Of Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting On Long-Term Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (original) (raw)
Related papers
Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Disproportionately Benefits High-Risk Patients. Discussion
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2009
Background. It is not known which patient subgroups may benefit most from off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) rather than coronary artery bypass grafting on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Methods. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database was queried for all isolated, primary coronary artery bypass graft cases between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2007, at a US academic center. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM) was calculated by a formula based on 30 preoperative risk factors. It was used in three ways to compare 30-day operative mortality between patients treated with OP-CAB versus CPB. First, patients were divided into quartiles based on their PROM, and mortality rates were compared between OPCAB and CPB patients within each PROM quartile. Second, a logistic regression model tested for an interaction between surgery type and PROM; a significant interaction would indicate that the relative mortality risk of OPCAB versus CPB varied with different PROM levels. Finally, locally smoothed kernel regression curves were used to visually estimate a threshold PROM point at which mortality rates diverge for the surgery types. Results. There were 14,766 consecutive patients, 7,083 OPCAB (48.0%) and 7,683 CPB (52.0%). There was no difference in operative mortality between OPCAB and CPB for patients in the lower two risk quartiles. In the higher risk quartiles there was a mortality benefit for OPCAB (odds ratio, 0.62 and 0.45 for OPCAB in the third and fourth risk quartiles). Logistic regression analysis confirmed a significant interaction between surgery type and PROM (p ؍ 0.005) meaning that OPCAB is especially beneficial to patients with higher PROM. This benefit is most significant for patients with PROM values above 2.5% to 3%, where mortality curves sharply diverge. Conclusions. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with lower operative mortality than coronary artery bypass grafting on CPB for higher risk patients. This mortality benefit increases with increasing PROM.
Scientific Reports
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the most frequent surgery in the practice of an adult cardiac surgeon and the most frequently performed cardiac surgical procedure worldwide. Despite the ongoing debates regarding the superiority or inferiority of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, it still comprises 15-30% of all CABG cases varying in different national registries. We performed a propensity matched study of 302 consecutive CABG patients,143 off-pump cases performed by the four experienced off-pump surgeons and the on-pump CABG cases performed by those surgeons and four other experienced coronary surgeons. The five year follow up was performed and data collected comprised of mortality, rehospitalization due to cardiac origin, repeated revascularization, myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular accident. Overall, the off-pump group of patients had a higher risk profile than the patients in the on-pump group. After matching, fewer differences were found between the groups. Propensity score matching analysis showed no difference in long-term survival as well as MACCE and repeated revascularization. The higher risk profile of the patients subjected to OPCAB and the comparable survival to lower risk CPB patients in this series indicate that in experienced hands, OPCAB is a valuable option in this important subgroup of patients. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) laid the foundation for the modern era of cardiac surgery and remains the most frequent surgery in the practice of an adult cardiac surgeon. Despite all ongoing debates regarding off-pump and on-pump CABG, we cannot ignore the fact that the first CABG interventions were performed on beating hearts 1. The interest for the off-pump coronary surgery (OPCAB) option arose in the 90's and led to creation of numerous papers managing this subject spanning from superiority to non-inferiority of OPCAB. The largest randomized study comparing OPCAB with conventional surgery (the CORONARY trial) clearly showed no significant difference in terms of survival after five year follow up 2. Several broad systematic reviews and meta-analyses questioned the superiority of OPCAB over conventional surgery with some of them showing better survival for the latter 3-5. However, all of them have shown that results were biased by underexperienced off-pump surgeons (<20 cases in the ROOBY trial) as well as low volume centers, with some of them having less than two OPCAB cases per month. As stated by Kirmani et al., the lack of experience was an important issue in several published national registries and propensity score matching studies 6. Despite the ongoing debates regarding the superiority or inferiority of OPCAB, it still comprises 15-30% of all CABG cases varying in different national registries. Thus, we decided to compare long-term results of OPCAB surgery vs on-pump surgery in "real-world" framework-in a high-volume center with experienced OPCAB surgeons.
Five-Year Outcomes after On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass
New England Journal of Medicine, 2017
BACKGROUND Coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery may be performed either with cardiopulmonary bypass (on pump) or without cardiopulmonary bypass (off pump). We report the 5-year clinical outcomes in patients who had been included in the Veterans Affairs trial of on-pump versus off-pump CABG. METHODS From February 2002 through June 2007, we randomly assigned 2203 patients at 18 medical centers to undergo either on-pump or off-pump CABG, with 1-year assessments completed by May 2008. The two primary 5-year outcomes were death from any cause and a composite outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death from any cause, repeat revascularization (CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention), or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Secondary 5-year outcomes included death from cardiac causes, repeat revascularization, and nonfatal myocardial infarction. Primary outcomes were assessed at a P value of 0.05 or less, and secondary outcomes at a P value of 0.01 or less. RESULTS The rate of death at 5 years was 15.2% in the off-pump group versus 11.9% in the on-pump group (relative risk, 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.58; P = 0.02). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events at 5 years was 31.0% in the off-pump group versus 27.1% in the on-pump group (relative risk, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.30; P = 0.046). For the 5-year secondary outcomes, no significant differences were observed: for nonfatal myocardial infarction, the rate was 12.1% in the off-pump group and 9.6% in the on-pump group (P = 0.05); for death from cardiac causes, the rate was 6.3% and 5.3%, respectively (P = 0.29); for repeat revascularization, the rate was 13.1% and 11.9%, respectively (P = 0.39); and for repeat CABG, the rate was 1.4% and 0.5%, respectively (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial, off-pump CABG led to lower rates of 5-year survival and event-free survival than on-pump CABG.
Effects of Off-Pump and On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting at 1 Year
Background Previously, we reported that there was no significant difference at 30 days in the rate of a primary composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new renal failure requiring dialysis between patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed with a beating-heart technique (off-pump) and those who underwent CABG performed with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump). We now report results on quality of life and cognitive function and on clinical outcomes at 1 year. Methods We enrolled 4752 patients with coronary artery disease who were scheduled to undergo CABG and randomly assigned them to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. Patients were enrolled at 79 centers in 19 countries. We assessed quality of life and cognitive function at discharge, at 30 days, and at 1 year and clinical outcomes at 1 year. Results At 1 year, there was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcome between off-pump and on-pump CABG (12.1% and 13.3%, respectively; hazard ratio with off-pump CABG, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.07; P = 0.24). The rate of the primary outcome was also similar in the two groups in the period between 31 days and 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.13; P = 0.19). The rate of repeat coronary revascularization at 1 year was 1.4% in the off-pump group and 0.8% in the on-pump group (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.89; P = 0.07). There were no significant differences between the two groups at 1 year in measures of quality of life or neurocognitive function. Conclusions At 1 year after CABG, there was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the primary composite outcome, the rate of repeat coronary revascularization, quality of life, or neurocognitive function
Does off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery reduce morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients?
European Surgery, 2004
Background: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare outcome in two groups of patients who were classified according to their risk groups and underwent coronary revascularization with or without cardiopulmonary bypass. Material and Methods: Between January 1996 and July 2000, 480 cases that underwent coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) were included in a retrospective nonrandomized manner for study. Group 1 included 210 patients who were revascularized using off-pump techniques. Octopus 2 and 3 (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN) were used for tissue stabilization. Group 2 included 270 cases who underwent CABG using CPB. Emergency cases, combined operations, reoperations, and patients in cardiogenic shock were excluded. Demographic variables were comparable between two the groups. Using the Allegheny Clinic Risk Scoring Scale [Magovern 1996], patients in both groups were scored as low, moderate, and high risk. In Group 1, 37 % of patients consisted of high risk patients while Group 2 had 14% (p < 0.05). Student's t-test and chi-square test were used for statistical analysis and alfa < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Mortality was 1.4% in Group 1 and 1.5% in Group 2 (p = ns). Mean anastomosis per patient was 2.6 ± 0.6 in Group 1 and 3.2 ± 0.5 in Group 2 (p < 0.05). Patients in Group 1 needed less blood transfusions and less inotropic support postoperatively (p < 0.05). There were also fewer minor neurological events (p < 0.05) and pulmonary complications (Type 2) in Group 1. Atrial fibrillation rate, infection, and major neurological deficit (Type 1) were similar in both groups. Mortality was less among Group 1 high risk patients (3.9 %) in comparison to Group 2 high risk patients (7.9 %), but this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: In low or moderate risk patients, CABG can be performed safely with or without CPB. In high risk
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 2010
We performed a meta-analysis of all studies comparing offpump coronary artery bypass graft surgery (OPCABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with coronary artery disease. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and 4,821 patients were compared, of whom 3,450 patients underwent PCI and 1,371 patients underwent OPCABG. The rates of stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac mortality, and all-cause mortality were similar. The 12-month rate of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events and need for repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the OPCABG group when compared with the PCI group.