Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in patients aged 80 years and older: institutional results and meta-analysis.

Patients aged ≥80 years are at high risk of adverse events after coronary artery bypass grafting. This study was performed to evaluate whether off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB) is superior to conventional surgery (CCAB) in these high-risk patients. The outcome of 185 patients aged ≥80 years who underwent OPCAB or CCAB at our institution was reviewed and a meta-analysis on this issue was performed. Similar immediate postoperative results were observed after OPCAB and CCAB at our institution, despite significantly different operative risk (mean logistic EuroSCORE, OPCAB 20.3% vs CCAB 13.4%, P = 0.003). Among 56 propensity score matched pairs a trend toward lower postoperative stroke (0%, 95% CI 0-0 vs 3.6%, 95% CI 0-10.0, P = 0.50) was observed after OPCAB. No significant differences were observed in the other outcome end points. Five-year survival was 81.0% after OPCAB and 78.1% after CCAB (P = 0.239). Pooled analysis of eight studies including 3416 patients showed a significantly higher risk of postoperative stroke after CCAB (pooled rates: 4.2%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.4-7.1 vs 1.5%, 95% CI 0.9-2.5, risk ratio (RR) 2.15, 95% CI 1.17-3.96, P = 0.01). A trend toward higher immediate postoperative mortality was observed after CCAB (15 studies including 4409 patients, pooled rates: 6.5%, 95% CI 5.2-8.0 vs 5.6%, 95% CI 4.2-7.4, RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.86-1.93, P = 0.21). Generic inverse variance analysis showed similar intermediate survival after CCAB and OPCAB (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.85-2.01, P = 0.22). At 2 years, survival was 82.8% (95% CI 76.4-89.2) after CCAB and 88.3% (95% CI 82.9-93.7) after OPCAB. Current results indicate that OPCAB compared with CCAB in patients aged ≥80 years is associated with significantly lower postoperative stroke and with a trend toward better early survival. However, suboptimal quality of the available studies, particularly the lack of comparability of the study groups, prevents conclusive results on this controversial issue.