Rationale, design and methodology for a Prospective Randomized Study of graft patency in Off-pump and On-pump MultI-vessel coronary artery bypasS Surgery (PROMISS) using multidetector computed tomography

Incidental findings in CT imaging of coronary artery bypass grafts: results from a Canadian multicenter prospective cohort

Objective

To assess the prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings identified during computed tomography imaging of coronary artery bypass grafts.

Results

This prospective study includes 144 patients undergoing coronary graft patency assessment using computed tomography. Incidental findings were classified as significant if they were considered to need an immediate action or treatment, short-term work-up or follow-up, or minor. A total of 211 incidental findings were present in 109 (75.7%) patients. Seventy-one incidental findings (33.6%) were cardiac and 140 (66.4%) were extracardiac. Most common cardiac incidental findings were atrial dilatation [39 patients, 48 incidental findings (67.6%)] and aortic valve calcifications (7 patients, 9.9%). Among the 140 extracardiac incidental findings, the most common were lung nodules (51 patients, 54 nodules, 38.6%), and emphysema (21 patients, 15%). Thirty-six (25.7%) extracardiac incidental findings were significant and notably, 23 (63.9%) were lung nodules. Follow-up was recommended in 37 cases, among which all patients with significant lung nodules (23 patients, 62.2%). In conclusion, most common computed tomography incidental findings in patients with coronary grafts were lung nodules and emphysema.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-018-3168-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for ischaemic heart disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is performed both without and with cardiopulmonary bypass, referred to as off-pump and on-pump CABG respectively. However, the preferable technique is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of off-pump versus on-pump CABG in patients with ischaemic heart disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2011), MEDLINE (OVID, 1950 to February 2011), EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to February 2011), Science Citation Index Expanded on ISI Web of Science (1970 to February 2011) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost, 1981 to February 2011) on 2 February 2011. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials of off-pump versus on-pump CABG irrespective of language, publication status and blinding were selected for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For statistical analysis of dichotomous data risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used for analysis to assess the risk of random error due to sparse data and to multiple updating of accumulating data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-six trials (10,716 participants) were included. Ten trials (4,950 participants) were considered to be low risk of bias. Pooled analysis of all trials showed that off-pump CABG increased all-cause mortality compared with on-pump CABG (189/5,180 (3.7%) versus 160/5144 (3.1%); RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.53; P =.04). In the trials at low risk of bias the effect was more pronounced (154/2,485 (6.2%) versus 113/2,465 (4.6%), RR 1.35,95% CI 1.07 to 1.70; P =.01). TSA showed that the risk of random error on the result was unlikely. Off-pump CABG resulted in fewer distal anastomoses (MD -0.28; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.16, P <.00001). No significant differences in myocardial infarction, stroke, renal insufficiency, or coronary re-intervention were observed. Off-pump CABG reduced post-operative atrial fibrillation compared with on-pump CABG, however, in trials at low risk of bias, the estimated effect was not significantly different.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review did not demonstrate any significant benefit of off-pump compared with on-pump CABG regarding mortality, stroke, or myocardial infarction. In contrast, we observed better long-term survival in the group of patients undergoing on-pump CABG with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest. Based on the current evidence, on-pump CABG should continue to be the standard surgical treatment. However, off-pump CABG may be acceptable when there are contraindications for cannulation of the aorta and cardiopulmonary bypass. Further randomised clinical trials should address the optimal treatment in such patients.