Rationale of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for left main trunk disease

Objective: Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) remains controversial in patients with left main trunk (LMT) disease because of a concern about the ability to tolerate hemodynamic instability. This study examined the safety of OPCAB for LMT disease compared with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: Between April 1997 and December 2002, 257 consecutive patients with LMT stenosis who underwent CABG were enrolled. There were 98 patients who received CABG with the aid of cardiopulmonary bypass (CCAB group), and 159 patients who received OPCAB (OPCAB group). Results: There was no patient who converted to on-pump intraoperatively due to hemodynamic instability. Both intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion incidence were lower in the OPCAB group. Postoperative course was similar, however, pulmonary complications were less observed postoperatively in the OPCAB group. No hypoperfusion syndrome was seen postoperatively in both groups. The average number of anastomosis was 3.2±1.1 in the CCAB group and 3.2±1.0 in the OPCAB group (p=0.645). Total arterial OPCAB with an aorta no-touch technique was achieved in 142 patients (89.3%) in OPCAB group. Postoperative angiography was performed in 95 patients in CCAB (96.9%), and in 141 patients in OPCAB (89.8%). Although graft patency of arterial grafts was good in both groups (100% in CCAB and 98.3% in OPCAB), saphenous vein graft patency was slightly lower in both groups (93.4% in CCAB and 76.5% in OPCAB) compared with arterial grafts. Conclusion: OPCAB allows a safe and effective treatment of LMT disease.     

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with significant left ventricular dysfunction

Objective  Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) is known to preserve left ventricular function better than conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CCAB). This study was carried out to investigate the safety, feasibility and efficacy of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with significant left ventricular dysfunction. Methods  Three hundred and eighty eight consecutive patients with preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 39% who underwent CABG between January 2001 through October 2007 were included in this retrospective study. Two hundred and eleven patients were operated by off-pump technique (group 1) and 178 patients were operated by on-pump technique (CCAB) (group 2). The postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Of these, 204 (52.57%) patients were diabetics, 355 (91.49%) patients had documented prior myocardial infarction, 316 (81.44%) patients were in canadian cardiovascular society(CCS) class III and 47 (12.11%) patients were in CCS class IV. Results  There was no significant difference in the number of grafts per patient between the two groups [group 1 3.02 ± 0.76 vs group 2 3.18 ± 0.72 (P=0.07) and the index of completeness of revascularization was comparable [1.08 ± 0.08) (OPCAB) vs 1.04 ± 0.06 (CCAB) (p=0.52)] The left internal thoracic artery was anastomosed to left anterior descending artery in 98% of patients. Operative mortality was 2.8% (6 deaths) following OPCAB and 3.93% (7 deaths) following CCAB (p=0746). Postoperative usage of IABP support was higher in CCAB group (12 patients vs 4 patients: P<0.03) and usage of moderate or higher doses of inotropic support was also higher in the conventional group (p<0.0006). More worsening of preexisting renal insufficiency was observed in CCAB group (p=0.01) and no significant difference in the incidence of atrial fibrillation was observed between the groups. Conclusions  Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting is feasible and safe in patients with depressed left ventricular function and the postoperative morbidity was less in OPCAB group compared to on-pump group.     

Safety and efficacy of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the application of the off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) procedure relative to safety and efficiency as measured by operative mortality postoperative complications and longitudinal outcome. METHODS: Three hundred and fifty OPCAB patients were compared to 3,171 on-pump or conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) patients between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 1998. The groups were divided into three preoperative predicted risk categories: low-risk (0 to 2.59%), medium-risk (2.6 to 9.9%), and high-risk (> or =10%). Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database definitions and predicted risk group models were utilized to compare all preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables using univariate analysis. RESULTS: Overall comparison of the immediate outcome of CCAB and OPCAB shows little statistical significance in the variables analyzed. The operative mortality was 3.4% in both groups. When the immediate outcome was compared between groups (CCAB vs OPCAB), as well as individual risk groups (low, medium, and high), similar patterns of operative variables and postoperative complications were observed. The operative mortality in the low-risk group was 1.1% for CCAB and 1.4% for OPCAB; 7% for CCAB and 6% for OPCAB in the medium-risk group; and in the high-risk group 28.5% for CCAB compared to 7.7% for OPCAB group (p = 0.008). Short-term follow-up shows a trend of increased recurring angina and reinterventional procedures in the OPCAB patients. CONCLUSIONS: Safety for OPCAB is assessed through retrospective data review. Longitudinal follow-up for survival, reintervention, and quality of postoperative document efficacy and patency rates, compared to on-pump procedures, is mandatory. This study documented the immediate safety of the OPCAB procedure. Preliminary findings at 1-year follow-up is an important finding in this study, but it is not conclusive at this time. Long-term longitudinal follow-up is required to assess the future effectiveness of OPCAB.     

Surgical revascularization in patients with poor left ventricular function: on- or off-pump?

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular dysfunction and low ejection fraction (EF) are at high-risk of complication and mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The potential success of off-pump CABG in this high-risk population has yet to be determined. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcome of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) and conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) in patients with poor left ventricular function, all from a single institution. METHODS: Data on patient demographics, preoperative risk factors, operative and postoperative outcomes were collected retrospectively on all patients having undergone isolated CABG between January 1, 1998, and October 31, 2001. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients (31 OPCAB/46 CCAB) were identified as having an ejection fraction (EF) of < or = 0.35. Of these, 52 had EF < or = 0.30 (21 OPCAB/31 CCAB) and 31 patients had EF < or = 0.25 (10 OPCAB/21 CCAB). Operative mortality was 3.2% after the OPCAB procedure versus 10.9% for the CCAB (p = 0.39). Use of intraaortic balloon pump (6.5%) was rarely required. The OPCAB procedure resulted in significantly less requirement for blood transfusions (p < 0.05), fewer distal anastomoses per patient (p < 0.01), and a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation (p < 0.05) compared with CCAB. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with poor left ventricular function may undergo surgical revascularization using off-pump technique with relatively good results and low mortality levels. The lower number of grafts performed on the off-pump procedure did not seem to affect clinical outcomes.     

Is routine application of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting warranted?

The limitation and indication of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) remain controversial. Since May 1999, we have applied OPCAB for all isolated coronary bypass cases routinely. Intraoperative conversion to CCAB occurred in 8 patients (10.8%). The main reasons for conversion were intramyocardial coronary arteries and arythmia-induced hemodynamic instability in the acute phase of myocardial infarction. We evaluated the results of OPCAB as compared to conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) as a historical control. The operative mortality was 1.6% in both groups. Postoperative complications including renal failure and requirements of circulatory support were significantly less in OPCAB. Postoperative max CPK-MB value, the amount of postoperative bleeding and the requirement of transfusion were also significantly less in OPCAB. Only neurological complication in OPCAB was temporary delirium in a high-aged patient, whereas three patients developed neurological complications including permanent stroke in CCAB. Right heart bypass was effectively utilized to maintain hemodynamics and expose the posterior vessels in patients with severely dilated and poorly functioning left ventricle (EF: 24-31%) and a patient with multiple severe stenosis in cerebral arteries. Coronary angiogram performed after the operation demonstrated 94% of graft patency. These results warrant the further application of OPCAB for multivessel surgical revascularization.     

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting via a small thoracotomy versus off-pump: a case-matched study

Objective: The minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) operation performed via a small thoracotomy has not previously been examined in a direct comparison to sternotomy off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB). Methods: We matched, according to age, gender, left ventricular function, and median number of distal anastomoses, 150 patients who underwent MICS CABG via small left thoracotomy, and 150 patients who received sternotomy OPCAB. All operations were performed by the same surgeon. Results: There was no perioperative mortality (0/300). In the MICS CABG group, pump assistance was used in 28/150 (19%) patients, and conversion to sternotomy occurred in 10/150 (6.7%) patients. In the OPCAB group, conversion to on-pump occurred in 3/150 (2.0%) patients. There were four (2.7%) reoperations for bleeding and one (0.7%) for anastomotic revision in each group. The median hospital length of stay was 5 days for MICS CABG (average 5.4), and 6 days for OPCAB (average 7.2) (P = 0.02). New-onset atrial fibrillation occurred in 35 (23%) MICS CABG patients and in 42 (28%) OPCAB patients (P = 0.3). No wound infection occurred with MICS CABG versus six (4.0%) with OPCAB (P = 0.03). A self-limiting left pleural effusion developed in 22 (15%) MICS CABG patients and in six (4.0%) OPCAB patients (P = 0.002). The median time to return to full physical activity was 12 days in MICS CABG patients versus >5 weeks in OPCAB patients (P < 0.001). Conclusions: MICS CABG is a valuable alternative for patients in need of multivessel CABG. The operation appears at least as safe as OPCAB, and associated with shorter hospital length of stay, less wound infections, and faster postoperative recovery than OPCAB.     

Does multi-vessel off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting reduce post operative morbidity compared to on-pump CABG?

Background Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) may contribute to the complications and it is assumed that eliminating cardiopulmonary bypass has the potential of reducing post operative morbidity after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The study was carried out to compare mortality and morbidity in the off-pump and on-pump CABG groups. Methods We prospectively analysed 200 patients undergoing CABG. Group A consists of 100 patients underwent multi-vessel off-pump CABG and group B consists of 100 patients underwent CABG with CPB. The incidence of complications (mortality, re-exploration for bleeding, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, neurological events, new onset renal failure (s. creatinine>1.6 mg/dL) pulmonary complications, length of ICU stay and hospital stay were recorded, analysed and compared. Results OPCAB patients received 2.73±0.61 grafts/patient and on-pump CABG patients received 3.39±0.75 grafts/patient (p value<0.00001). There was no significant statistical difference in mortality, incidence of stroke between OPCAB and CABG with CPB patients. Length of ICU stay was 32.84±4.22 vs 44.85±7.18 hrs (p value<0.00001) and hospital stay was 6.52±0.69 vs 7.94±0.92 days (p value<0.00001) between group A and group B respectively. Incidence of atrial fibrillation was less in OPCAB group 7% vs 12% although it was statistically not significant (p value 0.33). It was observed in our study that there was no significant deference in worsening of existing renal failure between on-pump CABG and OPCAB 6% vs 2% (P value 0.28). Blood utilization was significantly less in OPCAB group (p value<0.001). Conclusion There was no statistically significant difference in terms of mortality, incidence of stroke and new onset renal failure in both groups. But there was lesser incidence of post operative atrial fibrillation, worsening of existing renal failure in off-pump group though statistically not significant. There was significant reduction in blood utilization, length of ICU and hospital stay in OPCAB group.     

Off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery for critical left main stem disease: safety, efficacy and outcome.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients with critical left main stem (LMS) coronary artery disease can undergo off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery safely and successfully. METHODS: From May 1996 to March 2000 data for patients with critical (> or =50%) LMS stenosis who underwent conventional coronary artery bypass surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CCAB) or without (OPCAB) were collected prospectively using the Patient Analysis & Tracking System. A reusable pressure stabilizer, intra-coronary shunts and a single posterior pericardial stitch exposure technique were used in all OPCAB cases. Non-randomized, retrospective data analysis included demographic and preoperative risk factors, operative details, clinical outcome and early follow-up. RESULTS: During the study period 387 patients with LMS stenosis underwent surgery (OPCAB n=75, CCAB n=312). Groups were similar in terms of preoperative and intraoperative variables although CCAB patients received significantly more grafts per patient (3.1+/-0.73 vs. 2.6+/-0.76, P< or =0.001). Mortality was similar in both groups (OPCAB 1.3% vs. CCAB 2.6%). OPCAB patients when compared to CCAB patients had a lower requirement for postoperative inotropes (12.0% vs. 38.1%, P=0.0001), temporary postoperative pacing (2.7% vs. 10.1%, P=0.02), and blood product transfusion (6.7% vs. 31.4%, P<0.0001), a lower incidence of postoperative chest infection (0% vs. 6.7%, P=0.02) and a slightly reduced postoperative length of stay (7.9+/-5.46 vs. 8.3+/-5.11 days, P=0.01). At 24 months follow-up, CCAB and OPCAB actuarial survival was 94.1+/-1.7% and 97.7+/-2.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: OPCAB surgery is safe and effective in patients with critical LMS disease.     

In-hospital outcomes of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass procedures: a multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Concern about the possible adverse effects of the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) pump and advances in retractors and operative techniques to access all coronary segments have resulted in increased interest in off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) procedures. Four of the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group centers initiated OPCAB programs in 1998. We compared the preoperative risk profiles and in-hospital outcomes of patients done off-pump with those done by conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) with CPB. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2000, 1,741 OPCAB and 6,126 CCAB procedures were performed at these four medical centers. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting procedures were excluded. Data were available for patient and disease risk factors, extent of coronary disease and adverse in-hospital outcomes. RESULTS: The OPCAB and CCAB groups were somewhat different in their preoperative patient and disease characteristics. The OPCAB patients were more likely to be female and to have peripheral vascular disease. The CCAB patients were more likely to have an ejection fraction less than 0.40 and be urgent or emergent at operation. However, overall predicted risk of in-hospital mortality, based on preoperative factors, was similar in the OPCAB and CCAB groups; the mean predicted risk was 2.6% (p = 0.567). Crude rates of mortality (2.54% OPCAB versus 2.57%, CCAB), intraoperative or postoperative stroke (1.33% versus 1.82%), mediastinitis (1.10% versus 1.37%), and return to the operating room for bleeding (3.46% versus 2.93%) did not differ significantly. The OPCAB patients did have a statistically significant reduction in the need for intraoperative or postoperative intraaortic balloon pump support (2.31% versus 3.41%; p = 0.023) and in the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation (21.21% versus 26.31%; p < 0.001). Adjustment for preoperative risk factors and extent of coronary disease did not substantially change the crude results. Median postoperative length of stay was significantly shorter (5 days versus 6 days, p < 0.001) for OPCAB patients than for CCAB patients. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study showed that patients having OPCAB are not exposed to a greater risk of short-term adverse outcomes. These data also provided evidence that patients having OPCAB have significantly lower need for intraoperative or postoperative intraaortic balloon pump, lower rates of postoperative atrial fibrillation, and a shorter length of stay.     

Off-pump multivessel coronary artery surgery in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, which may be more marked in high-risk patients. We evaluated our results of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) in high-risk patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and compared them with results in similar patients who underwent operation on cardiopulmonary bypass. METHODS: A total of 1,075 patients who underwent OPCAB between October 1996 and June 2001 and who had one or more of the following risk factors were included in the study: poor left ventricular function (EF < or = 30%), advanced age (> 70 years), left main stenosis, acute myocardial infarction, and redo coronary artery surgery. These patients were compared with 2,312 similar patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting on cardiopulmonary bypass during the same period. Preoperative risk factors, intraoperative variables, and postoperative results were analyzed and compared between two groups. RESULTS: The average number of grafts was 3.0 +/- 0.4 and 3.2 +/- 0.3 in the off-pump (OPCAB) and on-pump (CCAB) groups, respectively. Hospital mortality was 3.2% and 4.5% in OPCAB and CCAB groups respectively (p = 0.109). Perioperative myocardial infarction, requirement of inotropic agents, stroke, and renal dysfunction were comparable in two groups. Intubation time (19 +/- 5 vs 24 +/- 6 hours, p < 0.001), mean blood loss (362 +/- 53 vs 580 +/- 66 mL, p < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (14.3 vs 19.7%, p < 0.001), and prolonged ventilation (4.6 vs 7.6%, p = 0.002) were less in OPCAB group. Intensive care unit stay (20 +/- 8 hours) and hospital stay (6 +/- 3 days) were significantly less in the OPCAB group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Off-pump coronary artery surgery can be safely performed in high-risk patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Operative mortality is comparable to that associated with on-pump surgery, and avoidance of cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with reduced postoperative morbidity in these patients.     

Risk of retinal microembolism after off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery

AIM: In order to investigate the neuroprotective efficacy of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB) over conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (CCAB), we have performed a prospective randomized study evaluating retinal circulation changes after OPCAB and CCAB. METHODS: Twenty patients were randomized to OPCAB or CCAB. Retinal fluorescein angiography and 60 degrees black-and-white as well as color fundus photographs of both eyes of each patient were taken 1 to 24 h before and 5 to 6 days after the operation. RESULTS: Patients undergoing OPCAB had more severely stenosed carotid arteries (P=0.075), higher incidence of slightly diseased ascending aorta (P=0.087) and higher Northern New England Cardiovascular Study Group stroke risk score (P=0.075). Neither stroke nor transient ischemic attack occurred postoperatively in these patients. Inferotemporal retinal arterial embolization and microinfarction was detected in one patient after CCAB, but in none of the OPCAB group. CONCLUSION: The risk of retinal embolism can be minimized by the use of OPCAB and, most likely, by adequate epiaortic ultrasound scanning of the ascending aorta and avoiding clamping in case of severely diseased aorta.     

Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass is gaining popularity as an alternative to conventional on-pump technique for myocardial revascularization. This includes minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and full sternotomy off-pump (OPCAB) methods. These two approaches should be evaluated for financial and clinical appropriateness. METHODS: Records of patients who had single or double bypass (internal mammary artery and/or saphenous vein) grafts between January 1997 and June 1998 were reviewed. These included 44 MIDCAB, 62 OPCAB, and 243 conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) patients. Univariate analysis was applied to pre, intra, and postoperative variables, comparing MIDCAB and OPCAB to the CCAB group. Procedural cost information was obtained from participating institutions. RESULTS: MIDCAB patients compared to CCAB patients had a higher predicted risk (5.4+/-11 versus 2.3+/-2.8, p = 0.012) and OPCAB patients had a predicted risk of 5.3+/-7.8. MIDCAB and OPCAB procedures required less operating room time and blood utilization. Observed operative mortality rates were MIDCAB 4.5%, OPCAB 1.6%, and CCAB 2.8% (not significant). Mean hospital costs were CCAB at $19,000, OPCAB at $15,000, and $17,000 for MIDCAB. CONCLUSIONS: Off pump procedures currently reflect acute episode-of-care cost savings over CCAB.     

Early and medium-term results after on-pump and off-pump coronary artery surgery: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND: Comparative publications on beating-heart off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) surgery versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CCAB) surgery frequently do not offer conclusive information because of investigator bias. METHODS: Trying to eliminate this problem, a propensity score analysis of the data of all CCAB patients (n = 517) and OPCAB patients (n = 133) operated on by the same surgeons during the same time period (1998 to 2001) was applied. After matching patients with similar propensity score values, 97 CCAB patients and 72 OPCAB patients entered the final analysis. RESULTS: Early results were similar in both groups: the 30-day mortality reached 1.4% in the CCAB group and 2.8% in the OPCAB group; strokes did not happen. Perioperative myocardial infarctions occurred in 4.1% of the CCAB patients and 4.3% of the OPCAB patients. Drainage blood loss in the first 24 hours after surgery (830 +/- 687 mL, CCAB group; and 909 +/- 678 mL, OPCAB group) was similar (p = 0.06) in both groups. Medium term results (freedom from percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or reoperation, freedom from myocardial infarction, freedom from stroke, and the quality of life) also were not significantly different between the off-pump and on-pump groups after a mean follow-up of 27 +/- 11 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that elective-surgery patients with coronary artery disease can be operated on either on-pump or off-pump with the same early and late mortality and morbidity.     

Early results of complete off-pump coronary revascularization using left internal thoracic artery with composite radial artery

Objective: Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) using the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) with a composite radial artery (RA) was employed for arterial revascularization in order to minimize neurological complication. Methods: Sixty-one patients underwent OPCAB using the LITA with a composite RA. Angiography was performed in all patients at two weeks postoperatively. Results: The mean number of distal anastomoses was 3.2±0.4 A Y-composite graft was used in 55 patients, and K-composite graft was used in the other 6 patients. There was no hospital death, no neurological complication nor deep sternal infection Furthermore, there was no episode of perioperative myocardial infarction nor hypoperfusion syndrome. Patients have been angina-free during a mean follow-up period of 1 year. The graft patency of the LITA to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) was 100% (61/61 anastomoses). The RA became occluded in 4 patients, and the patency rate was 95.6% (130/136 anastomoses). String or coronary-coronary bypass resulting from flow competition was observed in the LITA of 6 patients and in the RA of 13 patients. The string of the LITA occurred in the segment distal from the anastomosis with the composite RA. The string or coronary-coronary bypass was observed more often in cases in which the recipient coronary artery had less than 75% stenosis. Conclusion: OPCAB using only the LITA with a composite RA can be successfully and safely performed in patients with multivessel disease. Late postoperative follow-up of the flow competition is necessary to delineate the significance of flow competion.     

Is low ejection fraction safe for off-pump coronary bypass operation?

BACKGROUND: Does the manipulation of the heart during off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) procedure further compromise the hemodynamic stability of a patient with depressed left ventricular function compared with the conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) approach? Does this manipulation induce a more dramatic hypoperfused state that may contribute to an increase in the incidence of related complications or mortality? This retrospective review of data attempted to answer the above concern. METHODS: Between January 1, 1998, and June 30, 1999, 177 patients with ejection fractions of 30% or less underwent full sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting at our institution. Of these patients, 45 underwent OPCAB procedures and 132 patients underwent CCAB. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables as identified by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database were compared using univariate and logistical regression analysis. RESULTS: Despite recognized hemodynamic derangement during cardiac displacement, these groups of OPCAB patients appeared to tolerate the procedure well. Univariate analysis of cardiac enzyme leak and blood loss was statistically significant in the OPCAB patients. Utilizing regression analysis, cardiopulmonary bypass was the only predictor for all postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Multivessel coronary artery bypass utilizing the OPCAB approach in patients with depressed left ventricular function of equal to or less than 30% is appropriate and applicable. Analysis of CCAB and OPCAB variables was nonsignificant except for operative and postoperative blood loss and peak cardiac enzyme leak. Attention to intraoperative detail and hemodynamic management could be credited for the success with OPCAB.     

Coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass versus off-pump cardiopulmonary bypass grafting: does eliminating the pump reduce morbidity and cost?

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) may contribute to the complications and cost of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Off-pump CABG (OPCAB) allows coronary revascularization without CPB. We hypothesized that OPCAB provides satisfactory graft patency while reducing complications and cost compared with CABG with CPB. METHODS: We prospectively followed 80 patients undergoing CABG: 40 patients undergoing OPCAB and 40 patients undergoing CABG with CPB. OPCAB patients underwent angiography within 48 hours of surgery to determine early graft patency. Incidence of complications, length of stay, and costs were recorded for each patient. The influence of the number of vessels bypassed was analyzed. RESULTS: OPCAB patients (n = 40) underwent grafting of 2.7 +/- 0.7 vessels per patient compared with 3.6 +/- 0.8 vessels per patient in the CABG with CPB group (n = 40) (p < 0.0001). Angiography demonstrated 105 of 108 (97%) of grafts were patent in the OPCAB group. Incidence of complications, length of stay, and costs did not differ between the OPCAB and CABG with CPB groups. Number of vessels grafted showed a positive correlation to total costs in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: While OPCAB provided satisfactory early graft patency, there was no significant difference between OPCAB and CABG with CPB with regard to cost, length of stay, or incidence of complications. In this study, eliminating CPB did not reduce morbidity or cost after CABG.     

Myocardial revascularization in patients with low ejection fraction < or =35%: effect of pump technique on early morbidity and mortality

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Left ventricular dysfunction is an important predictor of in-hospital mortality. Surgical risk among these patients remains high. The present study is conducted to evaluate the difference in early morbidity and mortality among patients with compromised left ventricular function (LVF) after myocardial revascularization using either off-pump or on-pump coronary artery bypass graft. METHODS: Between April 2000 and April 2004, 150 patients with ejection fraction (EF) < or =35% underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. Eighty-four patients underwent conventional bypass (mean EF 30.1%+/- 4.2) and 66 patients had off-pump coronary artery bypass (mean EF 27.5%+/- 5.5). Different variables (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) were evaluated and compared. Determination of operation risk was done using EuroSCORE. Patients who underwent OPCAB were more risky due to a high percentage of associated comorbidities, mean EuroSCORE was 12.96 +/- 13.21 in comparison to 8.47 +/- 10.22 in CCAB. RESULTS: The mean operative mortality was 8.7%. Patients who underwent OPCAB had a lower operative mortality than CCAB (6.1% vs. 10.7%) inspite of a higher preoperative predicted risk score. Completeness of revascularization was higher among the CCAB group (85.7% vs. 69.7%; p = 0.01). Subsequently, the mean number of grafts was significantly higher among this group (3.4+/-0.7 vs. 2.0 +/-0.9; p < 0.001). On the other hand, morbidity was significantly higher in CCAB (35.7% vs. 19.7%; p = 0.03). However, the incidence of both myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation was more among OPCAB. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with left ventricular dysfunction are high-risk group. These patients can benefit from myocardial revascularization using either off-pump or conventional CABG, but both are associated with a higher mortality and morbidity than those with normal ventricle. The use of off-pump CABG resulted in better clinical outcome and mortality, but less number of grafts performed than those with conventional CABG especially in patients with lowest EF.     

The clinical outcome of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in the elderly patients

Objective: There has been a body of evidence showing that off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) may reduce morbidity and mortality in the elderly patients. We reviewed our experience, retrospectively, on elderly patients aged 75 years and older who were operated on using the OPCAB technique. We compared their outcome to a similar group of elderly patients who were operated on using conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) during the same period of time. Methods: Registry data and patients' notes and charts were reviewed for 56 consecutive elderly OPCAB patients (age 78.5±3.5 years) and 87 consecutive CPB patients (age 77.2±2.4 years, P=0.01). Both groups had similar risk factor profiles: Parsonnet score 17.4±4.4 (OPCAB) versus 16.6±5.2 (CPB), P=0.19. We studied in detail their preoperative and postoperative data in order to compare the outcomes of both techniques. Results: The length of stay in the intensive therapy unit (ITU) was 35.4±52.9 h for OPCAB patients and 77.6±144.9 h for CPB patients (P=0.0008). No patient died within 30 days in the OPCAB group, whilst ten (11%) CPB patients (P=0.0066) died within 30 days. The incidence of serious complications (including pulmonary oedema, septicaemia, permanent stroke and renal dysfunction requiring haemofiltration or haemodialysis) was one (2%) in the OPCAB group and 11 (13%) in the CPB group (P=0.028). CPB patients required a significantly higher number ten (12%) of intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP) inserted compared to only one patient (2%) in the OPCAB group who required IABP insertion (P=0.05). Nine (11%) CPB patients were re-operated on for bleeding compared to no OPCAB patient (0%) needing re-operation, P=0.011. Conclusions: Although the mean age of the OPCAB group was significantly higher than the CPB group, the OPCAB group showed a significant reduction in postoperative serious morbidity, ITU stay and mortality. We believe that such a conclusion may have some effect on the decision-making and cost-effectiveness when performing coronary bypass surgery on the elderly population.     

Patency of sequential and individual saphenous vein grafts after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

Abstract Background: The impact of the grafting techniques (individual or sequential grafts) on the graft patency of off‐pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) has not been reported. The mid‐term patency rates for individual and sequential saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) as coronary bypass conduits of OPCAB were compared. Methods: A total of 714 distal coronary anastomoses on 448 SVGs were assessed using a 64‐multislice computed tomography in 398 patients at an average of 26.4 ± 23.6 months (three months to five years) after an OPCAB procedure. The blood flow of grafts in the proximal segment of individual and sequential SVGs was also compared. Results: The overall patency of sequential SVGs (95.9%) was significantly superior to individual ones (90.6%, p = 0.022). The anastomoses on the sequential conduits had better patency (95.1% vs. 90.1%, p = 0.013). The patency of side‐to‐side anastomoses (97%) was better than that of end‐to‐side anastomoses (93.1%) and also better than that of the individual end‐to‐side anastomoses (90.1%, p = 0.002, p = 0.041). No significant difference was observed between the two approaches in regard to the three major coronary systems; however, anastomoses on sequential grafts had superior patency to those on individual grafts in the right coronary system (p = 0.008). The blood flows of double and triple sequential SVGs were significantly higher than those of individual ones (p < 0.001, p = 0.048, respectively). Conclusions: The mid‐term patency of a sequential SVG conduit after OPCAB is excellent and generally superior to that of an individual one. (J Card Surg 2010;25:633‐637)     

非体外循环与体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植血管中远期通畅率比较

目的 比较非体外循环不停跳与体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植手术后中远期移植血管的通畅率.方法 对同一术者行冠状动脉旁路移植手术后5年以上病例50例.按手术方式分为两组.第1组采用传统体外循环下进行冠状动脉旁路移植(体外循环组,25例);第2组采用非体外循环不停跳技术进行冠状动脉旁路移植(非体外循环组,25例).对所有病例进行冠状动脉造影随访,比较两组移植血管的通畅情况.结果 两组均男21例,女4例.第1组手术年龄(55.4±8.9)岁;随访70～110个月,平均(86.52±12.48)个月;移植血管共83支,其中动脉移植血管41支,静脉移植血管42支,平均移植血管(3.32±0.63)支/例;随访移植血管通畅61支,狭窄6支,闭塞16支,动脉移植物通畅率为78.05%,静脉通畅率69.05%,总通畅率73.49%.第2组手术年龄(58.2±9.09)岁;移植血管共65支,其中动脉移植血管31支,静脉移植血管34支,平均移植血管(2.52±0.71)支/例,随访64～99个月,平均(82.68±12.48)个月;随访移植血管通畅47支,狭窄4支,闭塞14支,动脉移植物通畅率为74.19%,静脉通畅率70.59%,总通畅率72.31%.结论 非体外循环不停跳冠状动脉旁路移植手术移植血管中远期通畅率与传统体外循环手术一致,均可达到较好的中远期疗效.

Abstract：

Objective Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) is used more widely in recent years in China. However, there is an argument on benefits and risks of off-pump surgery. Many studies shown that OPCAB had more benefits in short-term outcomes than conventional coronary artery bypass grafting(CCABG). But evidences from other studies suggested that OPCAB resulted in less long-term graft patency as compared with on-pump surgery. This study examined the longterm graft patency of OPCAB and CCABG performed by one surgeon. Methods 50 patients who had received surgical revascularization by a surgeon for more than 5 years were reviewed, 25 patients received conventional coronary artery bypass grafting ( group 1 ) and 25 patients received OPCAB ( group 2). All patients had angiograms for compareing the graft patency between the two groups. Results Among 25 patients in group 1,21 were male and 4 were female. The mean age of patients at surgery was (55.4 ±8.9) years. 15 cases had unstable angina, 16 patients had old myocardial infarction and 6 cases had diabetes.The ejection fraction (EF) was 0.58 ±0.14. The mean number of bypasses per patient was 3.32 ±0.63. Mean duration of operation was (3.58 ± 0. 82) hours. Mean follow-up duration was ( 86.52 ± 12.48) months. 83 grafts were evaluated for patency ( open vs. closed) and were graded by Fitzgibbon as grade A ( excellent graft), B ( impaired graft, with a stenosis of ≥50%, or a diameter less than 50% of the grafted artery), or O ( completely occluded). The graft patency was 73.49%, 61grafts were graded as Fitzgibbon A, 6 grafts as Fitzgibbon B and 16 grafts as Fitzgibbon 0. 25 patients were in group 2, 21males and 4 females. The mean age of patients at procedure was (58.2 ± 9.09) years, 11 patients had unstable angina, 13 patients had old myocardial infarction and 6 cases had diabetes. The ejection fraction (EF) was 0.59 ± 0. 14. Conclusion No 2011.03.013 difference in long-term graft patency was identified between on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Off-pump oronary artery bypass grafting preformed by an experienced surgeon may gain similar long-term graft patency to that of conventional bypass.