Off-Pump Reduces Risk of Coronary Bypass Grafting in Patients with High MELD-XI Score

BACKGROUND

 This study aimed to assess the influence of the model of end-stage liver disease without International Normalized Ratio (INR) (MELD-XI) score on outcomes after elective coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) without (Off-Pump) or with (On-Pump) cardiopulmonary bypass.

METHODS

 We calculated MELD-XI (5.11 × ln serum bilirubin + 11.76 × ln serum creatinine in + 9.44) for 3,535 consecutive patients having undergone elective CABG between 2009 and 2020. A MELD-XI threshold was determined using the Youden Index based on receiver operating characteristics. Propensity score matching and logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for inhospital mortality and Major Adverse Cardiac and Cerebrovascular Event (MACCE).

RESULTS

 Patients were 68 ± 10 years old (76% male). Average MELD-XI was 10.9 ± 3.25. The MELD-XI threshold was 11. Patients below this threshold had somewhat lower EuroSCORE II than those above (3.5 ± 4 vs. 4.1 ± 4.7, p < 0.01), but mortality was almost four times higher above the threshold (below 1.5% vs. above 6.2%, p < 0.001). Two-thirds of patients received Off-Pump CABG. There was a trend towards higher risk in Off-Pump patients. Mortality was numerically but not statistically different to On-Pump below the MELD XI threshold (1.3 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.34) and was significantly lower above the threshold (4.9 vs. 8.9%, p < 0.02). Off-Pump above the threshold was also associated with less low-output syndrome and fewer strokes. Equalizing baseline differences by propensity matching verified the significant mortality difference above the threshold. Multivariable regression analysis revealed MELD-XI, On-Pump, atrial fibrillation, and the De Ritis quotient (Aspartate aminotransferase (ASAT)/Alanine Aminotransferase (ALAT)) as independent predictors of mortality.

CONCLUSION

 Elective CABG patients with elevated MELD-XI scores are at increased risk for perioperative mortality and morbidity. This risk can be significantly mitigated by performing CABG Off-Pump.

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.

Historical evolution of robot-assisted cardiac surgery: a 25-year journey

Many patients and surgeons today favor the least invasive access to an operative site. The adoption of robot-assisted cardiac surgery has been slow, but now has come to fruition. The development of modern surgical robots took surgeons close collaboration with mechanical, electrical, and optical engineers. Moreover, the necessary project funding required entrepreneurs, federal grants, and venture capital. Non-robotic minimally invasive cardiac surgery paved the way to the application of surgical robots by making changes in operative approaches, instruments, visioning modalities, cardiopulmonary perfusion techniques, and especially surgeons' attitudes. In this article, the serial development of robot-assisted cardiac surgery is detailed from the beginning and through clinical application. Included are references to the historical and most recent clinical series that have given us the evidence that robot-assisted cardiac surgery is safe and provides excellent outcomes. To this end, in many institutions these procedures now have become a new standard of care. This evolution reflects Sir Isaac Newton's famous 1676 quote when referring to Rene Descartes, "If have seen further [sic] than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants".

The effect of using the minimized cardio-pulmonary bypass Systems for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in diabetic patients

Introduction

Multiple studies have shown a decrease in the inflammatory response with minimized bypass circuits leading to less complications and mortality rate. On the other hand, some other studies showed that there is no difference in post-operative outcomes. So, the aim of this study is to investigate the clinical benefits of using the Minimized cardiopulmonary Bypass system in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and its effect on postoperative morbidity and mortality in diabetic patients as one of the high-risk groups that may benefit from these systems.

Methods

This is a retrospective study that included 114 diabetic patients who underwent Coronary artery bypass grafting (67 patients with conventional cardiopulmonary bypass system and 47 with Minimized cardiopulmonary bypass system). The patients’ demographics, intra-operative characteristics and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

Coronary artery bypass grafting was done on a beating heart less commonly in the conventional cardiopulmonary bypass group (44.78% vs. 63.83%, p = 0.045). There was no difference between the two groups in blood loss or transfusion requirements. Four patients in the conventional cardiopulmonary bypass group suffered perioperative myocardial infarction while no one had perioperative myocardial infarction in the Minimized cardiopulmonary bypass group. On the other hand, less patients in the conventional group had postoperative Atrial Fibrillation (4.55% vs. 27.5%, p = 0.001). The requirements for Adrenaline and Nor-Adrenaline infusions were more common the conventional group than the Minimized group.

Conclusion

The use of conventional cardiopulmonary bypass for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in diabetic patients was associated with higher use of postoperative vasogenic and inotropic support. However, that did not translate into higher complications rate or mortality.

Off-pump versus on-pump complete coronary artery bypass grafting: Comparison of the effects on the renal damage in patients with renal dysfunction

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare off-pump technique with on-pump technique on renal function in patients with nondialysis-dependent renal dysfunction who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting.

METHODS

The 94 patients with renal dysfunction undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting were retrospectively analyzed. No patient was receiving dialysis. Patients were randomly assigned to conventional revascularization with cardiopulmonary bypass and beating heart. Both groups were compared in terms of renal dysfunction parameters and dialysis requirement. The logistic regression models were constructed to identify risk factors associated with dialysis requirement.

RESULTS

Renal dysfunction requiring dialysis developed in 9 patients in the on-pump group. The measures analysis of variance was performed on the data that showed worsening of renal function in the on-pump group compared with the off-pump group. Cardiopulmonary bypass is significant as independent predictor for the development of postoperative dialysis.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that off-pump coronary revascularization offers a superior renal protection and has a significantly lower risk for renal complications in patients with nondialysis-dependent renal dysfunction when compared with conventional coronary revascularization with cardiopulmonary bypass.

The golden age of minimally invasive cardiothoracic surgery: current and future perspectives

Over the past decade, minimally invasive cardiothoracic surgery (MICS) has grown in popularity. This growth has been driven, in part, by a desire to translate many of the observed benefits of minimal access surgery, such as decreased pain and reduced surgical trauma, to the cardiac surgical arena. Initial enthusiasm for MICS was tempered by concerns over reduced surgical exposure in highly complex operations and the potential for prolonged operative times and patient safety. With innovations in perfusion techniques, refinement of transthoracic echocardiography and the development of specialized surgical instruments and robotic technology, cardiac surgery was provided with the necessary tools to progress to less invasive approaches. However, much of the early literature on MICS focused on technical reports or small case series. The safety and feasibility of MICS have been demonstrated, yet questions remain regarding the relative efficacy of MICS over traditional sternotomy approaches. Recently, there has been a growth in the body of published literature on MICS long-term outcomes, with most reports suggesting that major cardiac operations that have traditionally been performed through a median sternotomy can be performed through a variety of minimally invasive approaches with equivalent safety and durability. In this article, we examine the technological advancements that have made MICS possible and provide an update on the major areas of cardiac surgery where MICS has demonstrated the most growth, with consideration of current and future directions.

Hybrid coronary revascularization: a review

The long-term benefits of a left internal mammary artery bypass graft compared to the left anterior descending artery have been well described. The use of drug-eluting stents has minimized the morbidity of revascularization. Hybrid coronary revascularization is the planned use of minimally invasive surgical techniques for left internal mammary artery-left anterior descending artery grafting and the use of percutaneous coronary intervention for nonleft anterior descending coronary artery target revascularization. The optimal timing and order of revascularization in hybrid coronary revascularization remains unclear.

Five-year follow-up of a randomized comparison between off-pump and on-pump stable multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting. The MASS III Trial

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass is a safe, routine procedure. Nevertheless, significant morbidity remains, mostly because of the body's response to the nonphysiological nature of cardiopulmonary bypass. Few data are available on the effects of off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery (OPCAB) on cardiac events and long-term clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a single-center randomized trial, 308 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery were randomly assigned: 155 to OPCAB and 153 to on-pump CAB (ONCAB). Primary composite end points were death, myocardial infarction, further revascularization (surgery or angioplasty), or stroke. After 5-year follow-up, the primary composite end point was not different between groups (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.22; P=0.21). A statistical difference was found between OPCAB and ONCAB groups in the duration of surgery (240±65 versus 300±87.5 minutes; P<0.001), in the length of ICU stay (19.5±17.8 versus 43±17.0 hours; P<0.001), time to extubation (4.6±6.8 versus 9.3±5.7 hours; P<0.001), hospital stay (6±2 versus 9±2 days; P<0.001), higher incidence of atrial fibrillation (35 versus 4% of patients; P<0.001), and blood requirements (31 versus 61% of patients; P<0.001), respectively. The number of grafts per patient was higher in the ONCAB than the OPCAB group (2.97 versus 2.49 grafts/patient; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was found between groups in the primary composite end point at 5-years follow-up. Although OPCAB surgery was related to a lower number of grafts and higher episodes of atrial fibrillation, it had no significant implications related to long-term outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN66068876.

Off-pump coronary bypass surgery for high-risk patients: only in expert centers?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) grafting has been increasingly adopted in an effort to prevent deleterious effects of cardiopulmonary bypass, including the associated inflammatory response, global myocardial ischemia and the risks of aortic manipulation. In many studies, the greatest benefit of OPCAB has been in high-risk patients. This review will summarize the recent literature examining outcomes of OPCAB versus on-pump coronary artery bypass in high-risk subgroups, and will examine the safety of routine application of OPCAB in these patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prospective randomized trials have shown that in comparison to on-pump coronary artery bypass, OPCAB reduces perioperative morbidity, but have failed to show a mortality benefit, owing to small sample sizes. However, numerous large retrospective series and meta-analyses have demonstrated a reduction in risk-adjusted mortality and morbidity with respect to the following outcomes: stroke, pulmonary function, renal function, atrial fibrillation, need for early reoperation, blood transfusion requirements, length of ICU and hospital stay, and hospital costs. An even greater benefit has been seen in the following high-risk patients: those with acute myocardial infarction, left ventricular dysfunction, previous history of stroke, renal insufficiency, women, elderly patients, and those undergoing reoperations.

SUMMARY

Risk-adjusted outcomes are superior after OPCAB versus on-pump coronary artery bypass for mortality and numerous morbidity endpoints. This benefit is most easily demonstrated in high-risk patient populations.

Stentless versus Stented Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves

Objective

The purpose of this consensus conference was to determine whether stentless bioprosthetic valves improve clinical and resource outcomes compared with stented valves in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, and to outline evidence-based recommendations for the use of stentless and stented bioprosthetic valves in adult aortic valve replacement.

Methods

Before the consensus conference, the best available evidence was reviewed in that systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized trials were considered in descending order of validity and importance. At the consensus conference, evidence-based statements were created, and consensus processes were used to determine the ensuing recommendations. The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology system was used to label the level of evidence and class of recommendation.

Results and Recommendations

Seventeen randomized studies published in 23 articles involving 1317 patients, and 14 nonrandomized trial published in 18 articles involving 2485 patients were included in the meta-analysis and consensus conference. All randomized trials inserted the stentless bioprosthetic valves in the subcoronary configuration. The consensus panel agreed upon the following statements and recommendations in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: 1. Stentless and stented valves both provide an excellent valve substitute for aortic valve disease (class I, level A). 2. In certain situations, the early superior hemodynamic performance of stentless bioprosthesis offers advantages over stented valves (class IIa, level A). Because there were no randomized control trial comparing subcoronary stentless prosthetic valve and root replacement, the following recommendations are derived from expert opinion: 1. In the absence of aortic root disease and with an annulus greater than or equal to 21 mm, either stentless or stented valves are acceptable alternatives for the majority of patients when a current (second or third) generation bioprosthesis is indicated (class I, level C). 2. In the presence of an aortic annulus <21 mm, the use of a freestanding bioprosthetic root can be considered as an alternative to enhanced diameter stented bioprosthesis or a root enlargement procedure (class I, level C).

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting through sternotomy: for whom?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting hopes to avoid morbidity associated with cardiopulmonary bypass, improving clinical outcomes. Yet its technical difficulty and unfamiliarity raise concern that adoption of off-pump coronary artery bypass might be associated with poorer outcomes. Both surgeon-specific and patient-related factors are believed to play roles in the success of off-pump coronary artery bypass. This review sought to elucidate these factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current prospective data suggest that both techniques have similar rates of mortality but off-pump coronary artery bypass does provide patients with a lower morbidity. Multiple prospective studies suggest a decrease in stroke rates for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. There is a consensus that certain patients will have better outcomes if done off-pump. Surgeon experience with the procedure does impact patient outcome.

SUMMARY

Though every patient must be dealt with on an individual basis, it would appear that almost any patient is a candidate for off-pump coronary artery bypass and that, given time and an appropriate desire, most any surgeon can perform the procedure.