Dong Fang Zhao1, J James Edelman2, Michael Seco2, Paul G Bannon3, Michael K Wilson4, Michael J Byrom3, Vinod Thourani5, Andre Lamy6, David P Taggart7, John D Puskas8, Michael P Vallely9. 1. Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Baird Institute of Applied Heart and Lung Surgical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Baird Institute of Applied Heart and Lung Surgical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Cardiothoracic Surgical Unit, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Baird Institute of Applied Heart and Lung Surgical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Cardiothoracic Surgical Unit, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Academic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Sydney Heart and Lung Surgeons, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Baird Institute of Applied Heart and Lung Surgical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Cardiothoracic Surgical Unit, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Sydney Heart and Lung Surgeons, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 8. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Mt. Sinai Hospital, New York, New York. 9. Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Baird Institute of Applied Heart and Lung Surgical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Cardiothoracic Surgical Unit, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Institute of Academic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Sydney Heart and Lung Surgeons, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: michael.vallely@sydneyheartandlung.com.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of treatment for 3-vessel and left main coronary disease, but is associated with an increased risk of post-operative stroke compared to percutaneous coronary intervention. It has been suggested that CABG techniques that eliminate cardiopulmonary bypass and reduce aortic manipulation may reduce the incidence of post-operative stroke. OBJECTIVES: A network meta-analysis was performed to compare post-operative outcomes between all CABG techniques, including anaortic off-pump CABG (anOPCABG), off-pump with the clampless Heartstring device (OPCABG-HS), off-pump with a partial clamp (OPCABG-PC), and traditional on-pump CABG with aortic cross-clamping. METHODS: A systematic search of 6 electronic databases was performed to identify all publications reporting the outcomes of the included operations. Studies reporting the primary endpoint, 30-day post-operative stroke rate, were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: There were 13 included studies with 37,720 patients. At baseline, anOPCABG patients had higher previous stroke than did the OPCABG-PC (7.4% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.02) and CABG (7.4% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.001) patients. AnOPCABG was the most effective treatment for decreasing the risk of post-operative stroke (-78% vs. CABG, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14 to 0.33; -66% vs. OPCABG-PC, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.52; -52% vs. OPCABG-HS, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.86), mortality (-50% vs. CABG, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.70; -40% vs. OPCABG-HS, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.94), renal failure (-53% vs. CABG, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.68), bleeding complications (-48% vs. OPCABG-HS, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.87; -36% vs. CABG, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.95), atrial fibrillation (-34% vs. OPCABG-HS, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.89; -29% vs. CABG, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.87; -20% vs. OPCABG-PC, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.97), and shortening the length of intensive care unit stay (-13.3 h; 95% CI: -19.32 to -7.26; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Avoidance of aortic manipulation in anOPCABG may decrease the risk of post-operative stroke, especially in patients with higher stroke risk. In addition, the elimination of cardiopulmonary bypass may reduce the risk of short-term mortality, renal failure, atrial fibrillation, bleeding, and length of intensive care unit stay. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of treatment for 3-vessel and left main coronary disease, but is associated with an increased risk of post-operative stroke compared to percutaneous coronary intervention. It has been suggested that CABG techniques that eliminate cardiopulmonary bypass and reduce aortic manipulation may reduce the incidence of post-operative stroke. OBJECTIVES: A network meta-analysis was performed to compare post-operative outcomes between all CABG techniques, including anaortic off-pump CABG (anOPCABG), off-pump with the clampless Heartstring device (OPCABG-HS), off-pump with a partial clamp (OPCABG-PC), and traditional on-pump CABG with aortic cross-clamping. METHODS: A systematic search of 6 electronic databases was performed to identify all publications reporting the outcomes of the included operations. Studies reporting the primary endpoint, 30-day post-operative stroke rate, were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: There were 13 included studies with 37,720 patients. At baseline, anOPCABG patients had higher previous stroke than did the OPCABG-PC (7.4% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.02) and CABG (7.4% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.001) patients. AnOPCABG was the most effective treatment for decreasing the risk of post-operative stroke (-78% vs. CABG, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14 to 0.33; -66% vs. OPCABG-PC, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.52; -52% vs. OPCABG-HS, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.86), mortality (-50% vs. CABG, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.70; -40% vs. OPCABG-HS, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.94), renal failure (-53% vs. CABG, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.68), bleeding complications (-48% vs. OPCABG-HS, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.87; -36% vs. CABG, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.95), atrial fibrillation (-34% vs. OPCABG-HS, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.89; -29% vs. CABG, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.87; -20% vs. OPCABG-PC, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.97), and shortening the length of intensive care unit stay (-13.3 h; 95% CI: -19.32 to -7.26; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Avoidance of aortic manipulation in anOPCABG may decrease the risk of post-operative stroke, especially in patients with higher stroke risk. In addition, the elimination of cardiopulmonary bypass may reduce the risk of short-term mortality, renal failure, atrial fibrillation, bleeding, and length of intensive care unit stay. Copyright Â
Authors: Fabio Ramponi; Michael Seco; James B Edelman; Andrew G Sherrah; Paul G Bannon; R John L Brereton; Michael K Wilson; Michael P Vallely Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2018-07
Authors: Mario F L Gaudino; Sigrid Sandner; Giorgia Bonalumi; Jennifer S Lawton; Stephen E Fremes Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Winona W Wu; Patric Liang; Thomas F X O'Donnell; Nicholas J Swerdlow; Chun Li; Mark C Wyers; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Anders Aneman; Nicholas Brechot; Daniel Brodie; Frances Colreavy; John Fraser; Charles Gomersall; Peter McCanny; Peter Hasse Moller-Sorensen; Jukka Takala; Kamen Valchanov; Michael Vallely Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Salil V Deo; Yakov Elgudin; A Laurie W Shroyer; Salah Altarabsheh; Vikas Sharma; Joseph Rubelowsky; Lorraine Cornwell; Piroze Davierwala; Danny Chu; Brian Cmolik Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 6.106