Neil A Smart1, Gudrun Dieberg1, Nicola King2. 1. School of Science and Technology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia. 2. School of Biomedical and Healthcare Sciences, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom. Electronic address: nicola.king@plymouth.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When comparing effects of on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), it is important to assess the long-term clinical outcomes. However, most research conducted thus far has concentrated on short-term outcomes and ignored the long-term clinical outcomes, especially the 5-year outcomes of the largest randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes of on- versus off-pump CABG. METHODS: To identify potential studies systematic searches were carried out using various databases. The search strategy included the key concepts of cardiopulmonary bypass AND off-pump AND long term OR 5-year outcomes. This was followed by a meta-analysis investigating mortality, incidence of myocardial infarction, incidence of angina, need for revascularization, and incidence of stroke. RESULTS: Six studies totaling 8,145 participants were analyzed. In the on-pump group mortality was 12.3%, compared with 13.9% in the off-pump group. The odds ratio (OR) for this comparison was 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.32; p = 0.03; 13.9% vs. 12.3%). In contrast, there were no differences in the incidence of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.06: 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.25; p = 0.45; 8.4% vs. 7.9%), incidence of angina (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.57; p = 0.65; 2.3% vs. 2.1%), need for revascularization (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40; p = 0.16; 5.9% vs. 5.1%), and the incidence of stroke (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.10; p = 0.16; 2.2% vs. 2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Statistically, on-pump CABG appeared to offer superior long-term survival, although the clinical significance of this may be more uncertain.
BACKGROUND: When comparing effects of on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), it is important to assess the long-term clinical outcomes. However, most research conducted thus far has concentrated on short-term outcomes and ignored the long-term clinical outcomes, especially the 5-year outcomes of the largest randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes of on- versus off-pump CABG. METHODS: To identify potential studies systematic searches were carried out using various databases. The search strategy included the key concepts of cardiopulmonary bypass AND off-pump AND long term OR 5-year outcomes. This was followed by a meta-analysis investigating mortality, incidence of myocardial infarction, incidence of angina, need for revascularization, and incidence of stroke. RESULTS: Six studies totaling 8,145 participants were analyzed. In the on-pump group mortality was 12.3%, compared with 13.9% in the off-pump group. The odds ratio (OR) for this comparison was 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 to 1.32; p = 0.03; 13.9% vs. 12.3%). In contrast, there were no differences in the incidence of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.06: 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.25; p = 0.45; 8.4% vs. 7.9%), incidence of angina (OR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.57; p = 0.65; 2.3% vs. 2.1%), need for revascularization (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.40; p = 0.16; 5.9% vs. 5.1%), and the incidence of stroke (OR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.10; p = 0.16; 2.2% vs. 2.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Statistically, on-pump CABG appeared to offer superior long-term survival, although the clinical significance of this may be more uncertain.
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
Authors: Carlo Bassano; Paolo Nardi; Dario Buioni; Laura Asta; Calogera Pisano; Fabio Bertoldo; Claudia Altieri; Giovanni Ruvolo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mohammad Yousuf Salmasi; Sruthi Ramaraju; Iqraa Haq; Ryan A B Mohamed; Taimoor Khan; Faruk Oezalp; George Asimakopoulos; Shahzad G Raja Journal: J Card Surg Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 1.778
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
Authors: Sandro Gelsomino; Cecilia Tetta; Francesco Matteucci; Stefano Del Pace; Orlando Parise; Edvin Prifti; Aleksander Dokollari; Gianmarco Parise; Linda Renata Micali; Mark La Meir; Massimo Bonacchi Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-07-05