BACKGROUND: Surgeons have adopted off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) in an effort to reduce the morbidity of surgical revascularization. However, long-term outcome of OPCAB compared with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains poorly defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using logistic regression analysis and proportional hazards modeling, short-term and long-term outcomes (perioperative mortality and complications, risk-adjusted survival, and survival/freedom from revascularization) were investigated for patients who underwent OPCAB (641 patients) and CABG-cardiopulmonary bypass (5026 patients) from 1998 to 2003 at our institution. For these variables, follow-up was 98% complete. OPCAB patients were less likely to receive transfusion (odds ratio for OPCAB, 0.80; P=0.037), and there were trends toward improvement in other short-term outcomes compared with CABG-cardiopulmonary bypass. Long-term outcomes analysis demonstrated no difference in survival, but OPCAB patients were more likely to require repeat revascularization (OPCAB hazard ratio, 1.29; P=0.020). CONCLUSIONS: OPCAB patients were less likely to receive transfusion during their hospitalization for surgery but had higher risk for revascularization in follow-up. These results highlight the need for a large randomized, controlled trial to compare these 2 techniques.
BACKGROUND: Surgeons have adopted off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) in an effort to reduce the morbidity of surgical revascularization. However, long-term outcome of OPCAB compared with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains poorly defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using logistic regression analysis and proportional hazards modeling, short-term and long-term outcomes (perioperative mortality and complications, risk-adjusted survival, and survival/freedom from revascularization) were investigated for patients who underwent OPCAB (641 patients) and CABG-cardiopulmonary bypass (5026 patients) from 1998 to 2003 at our institution. For these variables, follow-up was 98% complete. OPCAB patients were less likely to receive transfusion (odds ratio for OPCAB, 0.80; P=0.037), and there were trends toward improvement in other short-term outcomes compared with CABG-cardiopulmonary bypass. Long-term outcomes analysis demonstrated no difference in survival, but OPCAB patients were more likely to require repeat revascularization (OPCAB hazard ratio, 1.29; P=0.020). CONCLUSIONS: OPCAB patients were less likely to receive transfusion during their hospitalization for surgery but had higher risk for revascularization in follow-up. These results highlight the need for a large randomized, controlled trial to compare these 2 techniques.
Authors: Mustafa Ozer Ulukan; Murat Ugurlucan; Orcun Unal; Muhammet Fatih Yılmaz; Nilgun Kasifoglu; M Behcet Sevin Journal: Arch Med Sci Atheroscler Dis Date: 2019-05-28