Graft patency at 3 months after off- and on-pump coronary bypass surgery: a randomized trial

Comparing the Effectiveness of Open and Minimally Invasive Approaches in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is an essential operation for patients who have severe coronary artery disease (CAD). Both open and minimally invasive CABG methods are used to treat CAD. This in-depth review looks at the latest research on the effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive CABG. The goal is to develop evidence-based guidelines that will improve surgical outcomes. This systematic review used databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science for a full electronic search. We adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and registered the results in the PROSPERO. The search method used MeSH phrases and many different study types to find papers. After removing duplicate publications and conducting a screening process, we collaboratively evaluated the full texts to determine their inclusion. We then extracted data, including diagnosis, the total number of patients in the study, clinical recommendations from the studies, surgical complications, angina recurrence, hospital stay duration, and mortality rates. Many studies that investigate open and minimally invasive CABG methods have shown that the type of surgery can have a large effect on how well the patient recovers and how well the surgery works overall. While there are limited data on the possible advantages of minimally invasive CABG, a conclusive comparison with open CABG is still dubious. Additional clinical trials are required to examine a wider spectrum of patient results.

Five-year outcomes of off and on-pump CABG: Insights from PROMOTE Patency Trial

BACKGROUND

There are limited studies reporting follow-up outcome data comparing of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) with on-pump (ONCAB) technique. The aim of the study was to report the 5-year clinical outcomes of OPCAB and ONCAB in a post hoc analysis of the PROMOTE patency trial.

METHODS

From March 2016 through March 2017, a total of 321 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were randomised to either the off-pump or the on-pump technique. Data on all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), repeat revascularisation and need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) were recorded. The composite and each of these individual outcomes are reported at 5-year interval.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 65.9 months (±3.39). A total of 275 (85.93%) patients followed up at the 5-year interval who underwent CABG by the off-pump (n  =  158) and the on-pump (n  =  162) technique. The all-cause mortality was 8.9% and 5.7% in ONCAB and OPCAB, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]  =  0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-1.57, p  =  0.31). The composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal MI, non-fatal CVA, RRT and need for repeat revascularisation was comparable in both groups (7.1% vs. 11.9%, HR  =  0.57; 95% CI 0.25-1.31, p  =  0.18 in OPCAB and ONCAB, respectively). The rates of 5-year non-fatal MI (p  =  0.2), non-fatal CVA (p  =  0.36) and need for repeat revascularisation (p  =  1) were similar in both groups. A sub-group analysis did not show any significant interaction or effect modification with either of the techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-year clinical outcomes of OPCAB are comparable to ONCAB in low-risk patients undergoing CABG. Off-pump coronary artery bypass had no additional benefit in any subgroup.

Randomized evidence on graft patency after off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The debate between off-pump CABG (OPCAB) and on-pump CABG (ONCAB) has been ongoing for decades. We aimed to provide a comprehensive update of the current randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in evaluating the graft patency of OPCAB versus ONCAB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases until April 30, 2021. All RCTs from 2003 to 2020 comparing the results of graft patency between OPCAB and ONCAB were included. We compared the overall graft occlusion between the two groups, and subgroup analyses were conducted based on different types of conduits and target territories, crossover from off-pump to on-pump rate, and the length of follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were identified, with 5743 grafts in the OPCAB group and 5898 in the ONCAB group. OPCAB was associated with a higher risk of occlusion in the overall graft (RR: 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.46), saphenous vein graft (SVG) (RR: 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23-1.59), grafts to left anterior descending (LAD) territory (RR: 1.52; 95% CI, 1.11-2.08) and left circumflex artery (LCX) territory (RR: 1.45; 95% CI, 1.19-1.76), while no significant difference was observed between the two groups in respect of arterial conduits and grafts to right coronary artery (RCA) territory. Furthermore, the lower crossover rate and longer length of follow-up appeared to reduce the association between OPCAB and lower graft patency.

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis indicates that, compared with ONCAB, graft patency is poorer with OPCAB for overall grafts, SVG grafts, grafts to LAD and LCX territories, whereas the results remain comparable for arterial conduits and grafts to RCA territory.

One-year outcomes of off- and on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: PROMOTE patency trial

PURPOSE

Earlier we reported 3-month graft patency and clinical outcomes of prospective randomized comparison of off-pump and on-pump multivessel coronary artery bypass surgery to evaluate outcomes and graft patency (PROMOTE patency) trial. We now report major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 1 year of patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using either off-pump technique or on-pump technique.

METHODS

The PROMOTE patency trial is a two-arm, prospective, randomized, multicentre trial, and enrolled 320 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease from March 2016 through March 2017 at 6 centres and were randomly assigned to undergo either off-pump CABG (OPCAB) (n = 158 patients) or on-pump CABG (n = 162 patients). The outcomes at 1 year were assessed.

RESULTS

One mortality (0.64%) occurred in off-pump group (at 30 days) and 4 (2.48%) in on-pump group (1 at 30 days, 2 at 3 months, and 1 at 1 year) (p = 0.37). There was no difference between off-pump and on-pump groups in the outcomes of nonfatal myocardial infarction (1 in off-pump and 2 in on-pump group, p = 1.00) and cerebrovascular accident (none in off-pump and 2 in on-pump group, p = 0.49). Repeat revascularization was done in one patient in each group (p = 1.00).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in the incidence of MACCE between off-pump and on-pump CABG group at 1 year.

Off-pump versus on-pump bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease (EXCEL study) - is experience the unknown variable?

A post hoc analysis of the Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) data compared off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) technique with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). It was reported that OPCAB was associated with lower rate of revascularization especially in the inferolateral wall and carried increased risk of 3-year all-cause mortality compared to on-pump CABG. However, the study does not provide any information on the experience of participating surgeons which is a key determinant of outcomes in OPCAB surgery. In the absence of this key variable, the extrapolation and applicability of this finding to the wider surgical practice, especially in countries like India and Japan, may not be accurate.