Umberto Benedetto1, Douglas G Altman2, Stephen Gerry2, Alastair Gray3, Belinda Lees4, Marcus Flather5, David P Taggart4. 1. Bristol Heart Institute, University of Bristol, School of Clinical Sciences, Bristol, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Umberto.benedetto@hotmail.com. 2. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Public Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 4. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom. 5. Research and Development Unit, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of off-pump coronary artery bypass continue to be controversial because some studies have reported increased adverse event rates with off-pump coronary artery bypass when compared with on-pump coronary artery bypass. The Arterial Revascularization Trial compared survival after bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery grafting. The choice of off-pump coronary artery bypass versus on-pump coronary artery bypass was based on the surgeon's discretion. We performed a post hoc analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Trial to compare 5-year outcomes with 2 strategies. METHODS: Among 3102 patients enrolled in the Arterial Revascularization Trial, we selected 1260 patients who underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass versus 1700 patients who underwent on-pump coronary artery bypass with cardioplegic arrest for the present comparison. Primary outcomes were 5-year mortality and incidence of major cardiac and cerebrovascular events, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and revascularization after index procedure. Propensity score matching selected 1260 pairs for final comparison. Stratified Cox models were used for treatment effect estimate. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was comparable between off-pump coronary artery bypass and on-pump coronary artery bypass groups (12 [1.0%] vs 15 [1.2%]; P = .7). Conversion rate to on-pump during off-pump coronary artery bypass was 29 of 1260 (2.3%). When compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass not converted, off-pump coronary artery bypass converted to on-pump presented a remarkably higher hospital mortality (10.3% vs 0.7%; P < .001). At 5 years, the mortality rate was 110 (8.9%) versus 102 (8.3%) in the off-pump coronary artery bypass and on-pump coronary artery bypass groups, respectively, with no significant difference (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.52; P = .35). Incidence of major cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 175 (14.3) versus 169 (13.8) in the off-pump coronary artery bypass and on-pump coronary artery bypass groups, respectively, with no significant difference (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.31; P = .65). CONCLUSIONS: The present post hoc Arterial Revascularization Trial analysis supports the hypothesis that both off-pump coronary artery bypass and on-pump coronary artery bypass are equally effective and safe.
BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of off-pump coronary artery bypass continue to be controversial because some studies have reported increased adverse event rates with off-pump coronary artery bypass when compared with on-pump coronary artery bypass. The Arterial Revascularization Trial compared survival after bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery grafting. The choice of off-pump coronary artery bypass versus on-pump coronary artery bypass was based on the surgeon's discretion. We performed a post hoc analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Trial to compare 5-year outcomes with 2 strategies. METHODS: Among 3102 patients enrolled in the Arterial Revascularization Trial, we selected 1260 patients who underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass versus 1700 patients who underwent on-pump coronary artery bypass with cardioplegic arrest for the present comparison. Primary outcomes were 5-year mortality and incidence of major cardiac and cerebrovascular events, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, and revascularization after index procedure. Propensity score matching selected 1260 pairs for final comparison. Stratified Cox models were used for treatment effect estimate. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was comparable between off-pump coronary artery bypass and on-pump coronary artery bypass groups (12 [1.0%] vs 15 [1.2%]; P = .7). Conversion rate to on-pump during off-pump coronary artery bypass was 29 of 1260 (2.3%). When compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass not converted, off-pump coronary artery bypass converted to on-pump presented a remarkably higher hospital mortality (10.3% vs 0.7%; P < .001). At 5 years, the mortality rate was 110 (8.9%) versus 102 (8.3%) in the off-pump coronary artery bypass and on-pump coronary artery bypass groups, respectively, with no significant difference (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.52; P = .35). Incidence of major cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 175 (14.3) versus 169 (13.8) in the off-pump coronary artery bypass and on-pump coronary artery bypass groups, respectively, with no significant difference (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.31; P = .65). CONCLUSIONS: The present post hoc Arterial Revascularization Trial analysis supports the hypothesis that both off-pump coronary artery bypass and on-pump coronary artery bypass are equally effective and safe.
Authors: Mario Gaudino; Gianni D Angelini; Charalambos Antoniades; Faisal Bakaeen; Umberto Benedetto; Antonio M Calafiore; Antonino Di Franco; Michele Di Mauro; Stephen E Fremes; Leonard N Girardi; David Glineur; Juan Grau; Guo-Wei He; Carlo Patrono; John D Puskas; Marc Ruel; Thomas A Schwann; Derrick Y Tam; James Tatoulis; Robert Tranbaugh; Michael Vallely; Marco A Zenati; Michael Mack; David P Taggart Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 5.501