Myocardial metabolism on off-pump surgery; a randomized study of 50 cases

Effect of Age on Clinical Outcomes Following On-/Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass: Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Objective

There is currently much debate about which patients would benefit more after on- or off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this meta-analysis and meta-regression is to investigate the effect of age on short-term clinical outcomes after these approaches.

Methods

To identify potential studies, systematic searches were carried out in the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The search strategy included the key concepts of “cardiopulmonary bypass” AND “coronary artery bypass grafting” AND “off pump” OR “on pump”. This was followed by a meta-analysis and meta-regression investigating the effect of age on the incidences of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and mortality.

Results

Thirty-seven studies including 15,324 participants were analysed. Overall, there was a significant odds reduction for patients receiving off-pump CABG suffering a stroke (odds ratio [OR] 0.770, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.594, 0.998, P=0.048); however, when patients were subdivided according to different age bands, this difference disappeared. There were also no significant differences in the odds of mortality (OR 0.876, 95% CI 0.703, 1.093, P=0.241) or MI (OR 0.937, 95% CI 0.795, 1.105, P=0.439). Meta-regression analysis revealed no significant relationship between age and stroke (P=0.652), age and mortality (P=548), and age and MI (P=0.464).

Conclusion

Patients undergoing CABG are becoming older and may suffer from multiple comorbidities increasing their risk profile. However, with respect to short-term clinical outcomes, the patient’s age does not help in determining whether off- or on-pump is superior.

Off-Pump versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis and Consensus Statement from the 2004 ISMICS Consensus Conference

Background

The purpose of this evidence-based consensus statement is to systematically review and meta-analyze the randomized and nonrandomized evidence comparing off-pump (OPCAB) to conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) surgery and to provide consensus on the role of OPCAB in low- and high-risk surgical patients.

Methods and Results

This consensus conference was conducted according to the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) standards for development of clinical practice guidelines. The Steering Committee collated all published studies of OPCAB versus CCAB through May 2004 and developed six questions central to controversies surrounding OPCAB surgery in mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization. For mixed-risk patient populations, meta-analysis of 37 randomized clinical trials (3,369 patients, Level A) reported across a total of 53 papers, and two meta-analyses of nonrandomized trials (Level B) comparing OPCAB versus CCAB were identified. For high-risk patient populations, we performed a meta-analysis of 3 randomized and 42 nonrandomized trials (26,349 patients, Level B).

Conclusion

Meta-analysis of Level A and B evidence provided the basis for the following consensus statements in patients undergoing surgical myocardial revascularization: (1) OPCAB should be considered a safe alternative to CCAB with respect to risk of mortality [Class I, Level A]; (2) With appropriate use of modern stabilizers, heart positioning devices, and adequate surgeon experience, similar completeness of revascularization and graft patency can be achieved [Class IIa, Level A]; (3) OPCAB is recommended to reduce perioperative morbidity [Class I, Level A]; (4) OPCAB may be recommended to minimize midterm cognitive dysfunction [Class IIa, Level A]; (5) OPCAB should be considered as an equivalent alternative to CCAB in regard to quality of life [Class I, Level A]; (6) OPCAB is recommended to reduce the duration of ventilation, ICU and hospital stay, and resource utilization [Class I, Level A]; (7) OPCAB should be considered in high-risk patients to reduce perioperative mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization [Class IIa, Level B].

Effects of on-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on myocardial metabolism

BACKGROUND

On-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (ON-PCABG) and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OF-PCABG) greatly affect myocardial metabolism (MCMB). However, no study has systematically explored and compared the impacts of ON-PCABG and OF-PCABG on MCMB. This study will aim to explore and to compare the effects of ON-PCABG and OF-PCABG on MCMB systematically.

METHODS

We will conduct the comprehensive literature search from the following electronic databases from inception to the present: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDILINE, CINAHL, AMED and 4 Chinese databases without language restrictions. This systematic review will only concern randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case-control studies of ON-PCABG and OF-PCABG on MCMB. The methodological quality of each entered study will be assessed by using Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

Primary outcomes include myocardial cellular markers, myocardial lactate, oxygen utilization, pyruvate, and intramyocardial concentrations of glucose, urea and lactate. Secondary outcome comprises of glutathione, superoxide dismutase, myeloperoxidase, and oxidative stress and any other complications post surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study will provide a high-quality synthesis and will assess and compare the effects of ON-PCABG and OF-PCABG on MCMB based on the current relevant literature evidence.

DISSEMINATION AND ETHICS

The results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication. This study does not require ethic approval, because it only analyzes the data from published literature.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019125381.

Use of cardiopulmonary pump support during coronary artery bypass grafting in the high-risk: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Data from randomized trials evaluating the efficacy of on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting remain inconclusive, particularly in high-risk populations.

AIMS

The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes associated with on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting among high-risk patients.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized control trials comparing on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, focusing on high-risk populations. Studies focusing on "high-risk" features: European System of Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) ≥ 5, age > 70 years, preexisting renal insufficiency, history of stroke(s), and the presence of left ventricular dysfunction were included. MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase were searched for all publications between January 1, 2000 and August 1, 2016, using the following terms: on-pump, off-pump, coronary artery bypass, high-risk, left ventricular dysfunction, elderly, aged, and renal insufficiency. Endpoints included cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, need for revascularization, renal failure, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Nine studies incorporating 11,374 patients with a mean age of 70 years were selected. There was no statistical difference in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and renal failure between the two groups. There was a decrease in further revascularization at 1 year with on-pump (OR 0.67 (0.50-0.89)). However, there was an increase in length of hospital stay by 2.24 days (p = 0.03) among the on-pump group with no difference in stroke (OR 1.34 (1.00-1.80)).

CONCLUSIONS

On-pump is associated with a decreased risk of additional revascularization by 1 year. However, this appears to be a cost of longer hospitalization.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting improves short-term outcomes in high-risk patients compared with on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and risks of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and to investigate the relationship between outcomes and patient risk profile.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and major conference proceedings databases were searched for RCTs comparing OPCAB and CABG and reporting short-term (≤ 30 days) outcomes. Endpoints assessed were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and cerebral stroke.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 100 studies, with a total of 19,192 subjects. There was no difference between the 2 techniques with respect to all-cause mortality and MI (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.09; P = .25; I(2) = 0% and OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.77-1.05; P = .19; I(2) = 0%, respectively). OPCAB was associated with a significant 28% reduction in the odds of cerebral stroke (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92; P = .009; I(2) = 0%). A significant relationship between patient risk profile and benefits from OPCAB was found in terms of all-cause mortality (P < .01), MI (P < .01), and cerebral stroke (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

OPCAB is associated with a significant reduction in the odds of cerebral stroke compared with conventional CABG. In addition, benefits of OPCAB in terms of death, MI, and cerebral stroke are significantly related to patient risk profile, suggesting that OPCAB should be strongly considered in high-risk patients.

ISMICS Consensus Conference and Statements of Randomized Controlled Trials of Off-Pump versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

Objective

At this consensus conference, we developed evidence-informed consensus statements and recommendations on the practice of off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (OPCAB) by systematically reviewing and performing meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OPCAB and conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB).

Methods

All RCTs of OPCAB versus CCAB through April 2013 were screened, and 102 relevant RCTs (19,101 patients) were included in a systematic review and meta-analysis (15 RCTs of 9551 high-risk patients; and 87 RCTs of 9550 low-risk patients) in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. Consensus statements for the risks and benefits of OPCAB surgery in mortality, morbidity, and resource use were developed based on best available evidence.

Results

Compared to CCAB, it is reasonable to perform OPCAB to reduce risks of stroke [class IIa, level of evidence (LOE) A], renal dysfunction/failure (class IIa, LOE A), blood transfusion (class I, LOE A), respiratory failure (class I, LOE A), atrial fibrillation (class I, LOE A), wound infection (class I, LOE A), ventilation time, and ICU and hospital length of stay (class I, LOE A). However, OPCAB may be associated with a reduced number of grafts performed (class I, LOE A) and with diminished graft patency (class IIa, LOE A, with increased coronary reintervention at 1 year and beyond (class IIa, LOE A), as well as increased mortality at a median follow-up of 5 years (class IIb, LOE A).

Conclusions

OPCAB compared with CCAB may improve outcomes in the short-term (stroke, renal dysfunction, blood transfusion, respiratory failure, atrial fibrillation, wound infection, ventilation time, and length of stay). However, over the longer-term, OPCAB may be associated with reduced graft patency, and increased risk of cardiac re-intervention and death.

Risk of stroke with percutaneous coronary intervention compared with on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although some trials have reported that on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery may be associated with higher rates of stroke than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), whether stroke is more common after off-pump CABG compared with PCI is unknown. We therefore sought to determine whether off-pump CABG is associated with an increased risk of stroke compared with PCI by means of network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CABG vs PCI were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and proceedings of international meetings.

RESULTS

Eighty-three RCTs with 22,729 patients randomized to on-pump CABG (n = 10,957), off-pump CABG (n = 7,119), or PCI (n = 4,653) were analyzed. Thirty-day rates of stroke were significantly lower in patients treated with PCI compared with either off-pump CABG (odds ratio [OR]; 0.39, 95% CI, 0.19-0.83) or on-pump CABG (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.47). Compared with on-pump CABG, off-pump CABG was associated with significantly lower 30-day risk of stroke (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.41-0.95). However, in sensitivity analyses restricted to high-quality studies, studies with more than either 100 or 1,000 patients, or studies with protocol definition or adjudication of stroke by a clinical events committee, the precision of the point estimate for the 30-day risk of stroke between off-pump vs on-pump CABG was markedly reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lower 30-day rates of stroke than both off-pump and on-pump CABG. Further studies are required to determine whether the risk of stroke is reduced with off-pump CABG compared with on-pump CABG.

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.

Clinical outcomes in randomized trials of off- vs. on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

AIMS

To assess the clinical outcomes of off- vs. on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in randomized trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched electronic databases and bibliographies until June 2007. Trials were assessed for risk of bias. Outcome measures were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and renewed coronary revascularization at maximum follow-up. We applied trial sequential analysis to estimate the strength of evidence. We found 66 randomized trials. There was no statistically significant differences regarding mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.44], myocardial infarction (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.65-1.37), or renewed coronary revascularization (RR 1.34; 95% CI 0.83-2.18). We found a significant reduced risk of atrial fibrillation (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.83) and stroke (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.31-0.91) in off-pump patients. However, when continuity correction for zero-event trials was included, the reduction in stroke became insignificant (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.32-1.19). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated overwhelming evidence supporting that off-pump bypass surgery reduces atrial fibrillation.

CONCLUSION

Off-pump surgery reduces the risks of postoperative atrial fibrillation compared with on-pump surgery. For death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and renewed coronary revascularization, the evidence is still weak and more low-bias risk trials are needed.

Current Status of Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

The expanding indications for angioplasty coupled with the successful short and mid-term results of randomized controlled trials of drug-eluting stents have already had an unquestionable impact on the practice of coronary revascularization operations. However, coronary artery bypass grafting remains a major mode of therapy for coronary artery disease. It is likely that surgery will continue to be preferred for more complex subsets and that surgeons will have to continue to maintain good results in patients with more complex problems. Concerns regarding morbidity associated with conventional surgical myocardial revascularization on cardiopulmonary bypass have led to a resurgence of interest in off-pump bypass surgery during the last decade, with the expectation that it would be safer if cardiopulmonary bypass could be avoided. This review summarizes the impact of off-pump bypass surgery in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with conventional coronary artery bypass on cardiopulmonary bypass by evaluating the current best-available evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing off-pump surgery with conventional bypass grafting.

Cardiac troponin T levels in on- and off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery

BACKGROUND

Conventional coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CCAB) has been associated with greater myocardial injury than off-pump surgery (OPCAB). However, the extent of myocardial injury following CCAB and OPCAB has not been assessed by priority of surgery or the number of diseased vessels. We tested the hypothesis that the additional myocardial injury associated with CCAB compared with OPCAB is sustained when patients are stratified by priority and 2- or 3-vessel disease.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this prospective cohort, we measured 24-hour postoperative cardiac troponin T (cTnT) following CCAB and OPCAB surgery to determine if OPCAB results in less perioperative myocardial damage by priority (urgent or elective). We studied 1511 patients who underwent heart surgery in one hospital in northern New England between 2000 and 2004. Surgeons used either CCAB (778 patients) of OPCAB (733 patients). Unpaired t tests were used to test the mean difference in cTnT between CCAB and OPCAB subgroups. Mean cTnT levels were significantly higher in the CCAB group (0.94 ng/mL) than the OPCAB group (0.18 ng/mL) with P < .001; this difference was consistent across urgent and elective surgeries, and patients with both 2- and 3-vessel disease. CCAB patients consistently demonstrated higher cTnT levels. Similar results were evident when stratified by patient characteristics and surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, higher postoperative cTnT levels are associated with CCAB than with OPCAB, regardless of priority, number of diseased vessels, patient characteristics, or surgeon. OPCAB results in less myocardial injury in patients, whether they present with 2- or 3-vessel disease and whether they undergo urgent or elective cardiac surgery.

Off-Pump Surgery Is Associated With Reduced Occurrence of Stroke and Other Morbidity as Compared With Traditional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Background and Purpose— There is growing enthusiasm for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) without cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Although deleterious effects of CPB are known, it remains to be proven that avoiding CPB will result in reduction in morbidity. We sought to determine whether off-pump surgery is associated with reduced occurrence of adverse outcomes as compared with CABG with CPB.

Methods— Studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Register 1980 to 2006 (February). We also searched the reference lists of randomized clinical trials (RCT) and reviews to look for additional studies. Study selection: RCTs comparing off-pump surgery to CABG with CPB. No restriction applied on the size of the trial or end point reports. Data extraction: 2 reviewers independently searched for studies, read abstracts and abstracted all data. Data synthesis: combined estimates were obtained using fixed or random effect meta-analyses. Relative risks and risk differences were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using χ 2 and I 2 values.

Results— There were 3996 patients enrolled in 41 RCTs (mean age 62, 22% female). No study reported information on race. Off-pump CABG was associated with a 50% reduction in the relative risk of stroke (95% CI, 7% to 73%), 30% reduction in atrial fibrillation (AF; 95% CI, 16% to 43%) and 48% reduction in wound infection (95% CI, 26% to 63%) with no heterogeneity among RCTs. This translated into avoidance of 10 strokes, 80 cases of AF and 40 infections per 1000 CABG. Fewer distal grafts were performed and there was evidence for >10 reinterventions per 1000 with off-pump CABG. Long-term follow-up is not yet reported in the trials.

Conclusions— Off-pump CABG is associated with reduced risk of stroke, AF and infections as compared with CABG with CPB. Evidence should be generalized taking into account RCT enrollment limitations, drawbacks related to training requirements, propensity to perform fewer grafts and likely reinterventions after off-pump surgery.

Impact of Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery on Postoperative Bleeding: Current Best Available Evidence

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is a prerequisite for open-heart surgery, and is a procedure routinely used. CPB exposes blood to artificial surfaces, to mechanical trauma from the pump, to alterations in temperature, and to dilution with fluids, whole blood, plasma products, and drugs, and leads to the activation of platelets, coagulation, and fibrinolysis. Coagulopathy during cardiac surgery with CPB results in impairment in hemostasis and subsequently higher morbidity and mortality. Recent advances in surgical techniques and postoperative management have aimed at reducing postoperative morbidity and mortality. Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery is one such advance that attempts to avoid the deleterious effects of extracorporeal circulation by performing myocardial revascularization without CPB. Emerging evidence from several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as well as large registries such as the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database suggests that OPCAB reduces the postoperative morbidity and mortality. This review article attempts to evaluate the current best available evidence from RCTs on the impact of OPCAB on postoperative bleeding and transfusion requirements.

Off-Pump Coronary Artery Surgery for Reducing Mortality and Morbidity

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of off-pump coronary bypass surgery (OPCAB) on mortality and morbidity.

BACKGROUND

Despite its potential for reducing morbidity and mortality, OPCAB's role in clinical practice remains controversial.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of 37 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 3,449) and 22 risk-adjusted (logistic regression or propensity-score) observational studies (n = 293,617) was performed. Two reviewers performed literature searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, reference lists), quality assessment, and data extraction. Treatment effects were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

In RCTs, OPCAB was associated with reduced atrial fibrillation (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.77) and trends toward reduced 30-day mortality (OR 0.91 95% CI 0.45 to 1.83), stroke (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.05), and myocardial infarction (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.25). Observational studies showed OPCAB to be associated with reduced 30-day mortality (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.78), stroke (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.69), infarction (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88), and atrial fibrillation (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82). At one to two years, OPCAB was associated with trends toward reduced mortality, but also increased repeat revascularization (RCT: OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.94; Observational: OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.39).

CONCLUSIONS

Randomized controlled trials did not find, aside from atrial fibrillation, the statistically significant reductions in short-term mortality and morbidity demonstrated by observational studies. These discrepancies might be due to differing patient-selection and study methodology. Future studies must focus on improving research methodology, recruiting high-risk patients, and collecting long-term data.