Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: for the many or the few?

Association of Hospital Volume and Outcomes Following Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

BACKGROUND

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) has been used to mitigate the negative systemic effects of cardiopulmonary bypass. Recent consortium and single-institution studies suggest an association between operator experience and long-term survival. We thus aimed to ascertain the relationship between institutional OPCAB volume and outcomes using a contemporary nationwide all-payer database.

METHODS

Adult admissions for elective isolated OPCAB were identified from the 2016-2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. The primary outcome was major adverse events (MAE), defined as a composite of mortality, reoperation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, or perioperative stroke during the index hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes included temporal trends, postoperative length of stay (pLOS), hospitalisation costs, non-home discharge, and 30-day readmission rate. High-volume hospitals (HVH) were defined to have annual caseloads >35 based on cubic spline analysis.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 41,154 patients, 59.9% were treated at HVH. The proportion of coronary artery bypass grafting operations that were OPCAB significantly decreased from 21.1% in 2016 to 18.3% in 2019. After adjustment, HVH status was associated with lower adjusted odds of MAE (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.88), compared to others. HVH were also associated with shorter pLOS (β -0.10, 95% -0.13, -0.07), reduced costs (β -US$4,900, - US$6,300, - US$3,600), non-home discharge (AOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.45-0.64), and 30-day readmission (AOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that OPCAB requires a distinct set of surgical expertise and institutional aptitude. As a result, centralisation of care to centres of excellence should be considered.

Long-Term Survival Following Off-Pump Coronary Surgery: Does Surgeon Experience Make a Difference?

See Article by Gaudino et al .

Efficacy and effectiveness of on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: A meta-analysis of mortality and survival

BACKGROUND

Despite many studies comparing on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), there is no consensus as to whether one of these techniques offers patients better outcomes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed from inception to June 30, 2015, and identified additional studies from bibliographies of meta-analyses and reviews. We identified 42 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 rigorously adjusted observational studies (controlling for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-recognized risk factors for mortality) reporting mortality for off-pump versus on-pump CABG at specified time points. Trial data were extracted independently by 2 researchers using a standardized form. Differences in probability of mortality (DPM) were estimated for the RCTs and observational studies separately and combined, for time points ranging from 30 days to 10 years.

RESULTS

RCT-only data showed no significant differences at any time point, whereas observational-only data and the combined analysis showed short-term mortality favored off-pump CABG (n = 1.2 million patients; 36 RCTs, 26 observational studies; DPM [95% confidence interval (CI)], -44.8% [-45.4%, -43.8%]) but that at 5 years it was associated with significantly greater mortality (n = 60,405 patients; 3 RCTs, 5 observational studies; DPM [95% CI], 10.0% [5.0%, 15.0%]). At 10 years, only observational data were available, and off-pump CABG showed significantly greater mortality (DPM [95% CI], 14.0% [11.0%, 17.0%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from RCTs showed no differences between the techniques, whereas rigorously adjusted observational studies (with >1.1 million patients) and the combined analysis indicated that off-pump CABG offers lower short-term mortality but poorer long-term survival. These results suggest that, in real-world settings, greater operative safety with off-pump CABG comes at the expense of lasting survival gains.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: Misperceptions and misconceptions

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) continues to be one of the most commonly performed cardiac surgical procedures worldwide. Conventional CABG performed on cardiopulmonary bypass termed on-pump CABG is regarded as the gold standard. However, on-pump CABG results in several physiologic derangements including but not limited to thrombocytopenia, activation of complement factors, immune suppression, and inflammatory responses leading to organ dysfunction. Furthermore, manipulating an atherosclerotic ascending aorta during cannulation and cross-clamping can predispose to embolization and stroke risk. Recognition of these detrimental effects of on-pump CABG resulted in resurgence of off-pump CABG nearly two decades ago. Off-pump CABG since its resurgence has been a subject of intensive scrutiny and speculation. Despite numerous retrospective nonrandomized studies, prospective randomized trials, and meta-analyses validating the safety and efficacy of off-pump CABG, opponents of the technique have persistently demanded abandonment of off-pump CABG. Several misconceptions and misperceptions are used as an excuse for such demands. This review article examines published scientific evidence to evaluate these misperceptions and misconceptions about off-pump CABG.

HEARTSTRING enabled no-touch proximal anastomosis for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: current evidence and technique

Surgical revascularization remains the standard of care for many patients. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) without cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) has evolved during the past 20 years, and as such can significantly reduce the occurrence of neurological complications. While avoiding the aortic cross-clamping required in conventional on-pump techniques, OPCAB results in a lower incidence of stroke. However, clamp-related risk of stroke remains if partial or side-biting clamps are applied for proximal anastomoses. Others and we have demonstrated that no-touch 'anaortic' approaches avoiding any clamping during off-pump procedures via complete in situ grafting result in significantly reduced stroke rates when compared with partial clamping. Therefore, OPCAB in situ grafting has been proposed as the 'standard of care' to reduce neurological complications. However, this technique may not be applicable to for every patient as the use of free grafts (arterial or venous) requiring proximal anastomosis is often still necessary to achieve complete revascularization. In these situations, proximal anastomosis can be performed without a partial clamp by using the HEARTSTRING device, and over the last few years, considerable evidence has arisen supporting the impact of HEARTSTRING-enabled anastomosis to significantly minimize atheroembolism and neurological complications when compared with partial- or side-bite clamping. This paper provides a systematic overview and technical information about the combination of OPCAB and clampless strategies using the HEARTSTRING for proximal anastomosis to reduce stroke to levels reported for percutaneous coronary intervention.