Mariusz Kowalewski1, Wojciech Pawliszak2, Pietro Giorgio Malvindi3, Marek Pawel Bokszanski2, Damian Perlinski2, Giuseppe Maria Raffa4, Magdalena Ewa Kowalkowska5, Katarzyna Zaborowska2, Eliano Pio Navarese6, Michalina Kolodziejczak7, Janusz Kowalewski8, Giuseppe Tarelli9, David Paul Taggart10, Lech Anisimowicz2. 1. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Dr Antoni Jurasz Memorial University Hospital, Bydgoszcz, Poland; Faculty of Health Sciences, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Collegium Medicum, Bydgoszcz, Poland; Systematic Investigation and Research on Interventions and Outcomes (SIRIO) MEDICINE Research Network, Düsseldorf, Germany. Electronic address: kowalewskimariusz@gazeta.pl. 2. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Dr Antoni Jurasz Memorial University Hospital, Bydgoszcz, Poland. 3. University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Wessex Cardiothoracic Centre, Southampton, United Kingdom. 4. Department for the Treatment and Study of Cardiothoracic Diseases and Cardiothoracic Transplantation, IRCCS - ISMETT (Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad alta specializzazione), Palermo, Italy. 5. Systematic Investigation and Research on Interventions and Outcomes (SIRIO) MEDICINE Research Network, Düsseldorf, Germany; Department and Clinic of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Oncological Gynecology, Collegium Medicum, Bydgoszcz, Poland. 6. Systematic Investigation and Research on Interventions and Outcomes (SIRIO) MEDICINE Research Network, Düsseldorf, Germany; Division of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany. 7. Systematic Investigation and Research on Interventions and Outcomes (SIRIO) MEDICINE Research Network, Düsseldorf, Germany; Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland. 8. Lung Cancer and Thoracic Surgery Department, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland. 9. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Milan, Italy. 10. Department of Cardiac Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.
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; I(2) = 0% and OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.05; P = .19; I(2) = 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; I(2) = 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.
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; I(2) = 0% and OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.05; P = .19; I(2) = 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; I(2) = 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.
Authors: Christopher A Heid; Mitri K Khoury; Kayla Maaraoui; Charles Liu; Matthias Peltz; Michael A Wait; W Steves Ring; Lynn C Huffman Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Maria Tafelmeier; Teresa Weizenegger; Sarah Ripfel; Miriam Fauser; Bernhard Floerchinger; Daniele Camboni; York Zausig; Sigrid Wittmann; Marzena A Drzymalski; Florian Zeman; Christof Schmid; Lars S Maier; Stefan Wagner; Michael Arzt Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 5.460