Comparison of Mid-Term Graft Patency between On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Plus Mitral Valve Plasty May Not Provide More Advantage in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease and Moderate Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation: An Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of isolated off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) and of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) plus mitral valve plasty (MVP) in treating coronary heart disease with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation to find a better surgical method.

METHODS

Clinical data of 822 patients diagnosed with coronary heart disease and moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into the OPCABG and CABG+MVP groups according to surgical methods. Baseline data of both groups were corrected, and clinical efficacy of the two surgical methods was analyzed and compared using the propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the use of mammary artery grafts, number of grafts, and blood product consumption between the two groups (P>0.05) after IPTW. However, the CABG+MVP group had a significantly longer operation time than the OPCABG group (4.13 ± 0.85 hours vs. 5.65 ± 1.02 hours, P<0.001). No statistically significant differences in postoperative major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were observed between the two groups. However, the intra-aortic balloon pump rate was higher in the CABG+MVP group than in the OPCABG group (12.3% vs. 25.0%, P=0.012). Although CABG+MVP can improve ischemic mitral regurgitation significantly (95.4% vs. 81.2%, P<0.001), there were no significant differences in the cumulative survival rate and the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events between the groups (P>0.05) after IPTW.

CONCLUSION

CABG+MVP may not provide more advantage in patients with coronary heart disease and moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation.

10-Year Mortality of Off-Pump Versus On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: An Updated Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression

The longstanding debate on off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (ONCAB) has primarily focused on short-term and mid-term outcomes, with limited attention to long-term survival. This study aims to address this gap by providing an updated analysis of 10-year mortality rates after OPCAB versus ONCAB. We have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, incorporating 22 studies comprising 69,449 patients. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 10 years. Meta-regression analysis explored sources of heterogeneity. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in long-term all-cause mortality between OPCAB and ONCAB (hazard ratio 1.000, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.08, p = 0.95). Although substantial heterogeneity existed across studies, meta-regression identified older age as a significant factor favoring OPCAB. However, patient characteristics like gender, co-morbidities, and graft numbers did not significantly influence the choice of surgical technique. In conclusion, this study challenges historical concerns regarding OPCAB's quality of revascularization and long-term survival demonstrating comparable outcomes to ONCAB in well-selected patients when performed by experienced surgeons. The results emphasize the importance of surgeon proficiency and advocate for recognizing surgical revascularization as a subspecialty.

Stable Hemodynamics within "No-Touch" Saphenous Vein Graft

PURPOSE

To investigate the hemodynamics characteristics of the "no-touch" saphenous vein graft (SVG) conduits by nicardipine intraluminal administration in vivo experiment.

METHODS

A total of 59 consecutive patients were enrolled and underwent a sequential SVG to three non-left anterior descending (LAD) targets with the average runoff ≤2 mm, 30 with "no-touch" harvest technique (group A) and 29 with conventional preparation (group B). The patients were subject to nicardipine intraluminal injection during off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedure. The intraoperative flow was measured with the ultrasonic transit time flow meter (TTFM), and the graft patency testified by multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) angiography, respectively.

RESULTS

The baseline blood flow was higher in group A than that in group B (p <0.05). However, the increases in blood flow of SVG conduits in group A were lower than those in group B with 19.7 ± 5.9 vs. 35.4 ± 9.2 mL/min, 14.8 ± 5.6 vs. 23.1 ± 6.8 mL/min, 6.6 ± 2.1 vs. 11.2 ± 4.3 mL/min before the first, second, and third anastomose after nicardipine intraluminal administration, respectively (all p <0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

No-touch SVGs were associated with higher baseline blood flow and less rises after nicardipine intraluminal administration during off-pump CABG procedure compared with conventional preparation. The no-touch SVGs seemed to be less spastic and well-tolerated on flow dilatation.

Long Term Outcomes of The Off-Pump and On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting In A High-Volume Center

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the most frequent surgery in the practice of an adult cardiac surgeon and the most frequently performed cardiac surgical procedure worldwide. Despite the ongoing debates regarding the superiority or inferiority of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, it still comprises 15-30% of all CABG cases varying in different national registries. We performed a propensity matched study of 302 consecutive CABG patients,143 off -pump cases performed by the four experienced off-pump surgeons and the on-pump CABG cases performed by those surgeons and four other experienced coronary surgeons. The five year follow up was performed and data collected comprised of mortality, rehospitalization due to cardiac origin, repeated revascularization, myocardial infarction and cerebrovascular accident. Overall, the off-pump group of patients had a higher risk profile than the patients in the on-pump group. After matching, fewer differences were found between the groups. Propensity score matching analysis showed no difference in long-term survival as well as MACCE and repeated revascularization. The higher risk profile of the patients subjected to OPCAB and the comparable survival to lower risk CPB patients in this series indicate that in experienced hands, OPCAB is a valuable option in this important subgroup of patients.

Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting-a surreal controversy?

As per the findings of the SYNTAX Trial, it has been established that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) affords the best long-term results in patients with multivessel disease. However, it is still a point of contention whether 'off-pump' CABG (OPCAB) (on cardiopulmonary bypass) is better. Many studies appear to establish the superiority of one or the other. But there is still no well-planned multi-centre randomised controlled trial looking into all aspects of the issue that can, once and for all, put the controversy to rest. But as long as one is able to give the patient a good result, does it really matter whether the procedure is done off or on pump? This article looks at the available evidence with regard to various parameters comparing OPCAB and conventional CABG in an attempt to answer the question, if at all, it is a question!

Meta-Analysis Comparing ≥10-Year Mortality of Off-Pump Versus On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is suggested to be associated with an increase in long-term (≥5-year) all-cause mortality. To determine whether off-pump CABG is associated with an increase in very long-term (≥10-year) all-cause mortality, we performed a meta-analysis of propensity-score matched observational comparative studies of off-pump versus on-pump CABG. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through May 2017. A hazard ratio of follow-up (including early) all-cause mortality for off-pump versus on-pump CABG was extracted from each individual study. Study-specific estimates were combined using inverse variance-weighted averages of logarithmic hazard ratios in the random-effects model. Of 164 potentially relevant studies, our search identified 16 propensity-score matched observational comparative studies of off-pump versus on-pump CABG with ≥10-year follow-up enrolling a total of 82,316 patients. A pooled analysis of all the 16 studies demonstrated that off-pump CABG was significantly associated with an increase in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.12, p for effect = 0.0008; p for heterogeneity = 0.30, I² = 12%). In a sensitivity analysis, exclusion of any single hazard ratio from the analysis (leave-one-out meta-analysis) did not substantively alter the overall result. There was no evidence of a significant publication bias. In conclusion, off-pump CABG is associated with an increase in very long-term (≥10 years) all-cause mortality compared with on-pump CABG.