Off-pump surgery does not reduce stroke, compared with results of on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Takagi, Hisato; Tanabashi, Toshiyuki; Kawai, Norikazu; Umemoto, Takuya

doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.07.006

Cited by 26 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…44 However, most clinical trials have shown no benefit in reducing strokes from OPCAB. 8,[25][26][27]45 Nishiyama and coworkers 46 found that patients undergoing OPCAB had a significantly lower incidence of early stroke immediately after surgery (0.1% versus 1.1%; P=0.0009), but the incidence of delayed stroke was not significantly different (0.9% versus 1.4%; P=0.3) between groups. They concluded that delayed stroke remains a problem after both OPCAB and on-pump CABG.…”

Section: Neurological and Cognitive Changesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Should Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Be Abandoned?

Lazar

2013

Circulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

406O ne of the most controversial areas of cardiac surgery has been whether off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (OPCAB) surgery is superior to traditional on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. On-pump CABG surgery has been an effective, safe, and time-proven technique and is the gold standard with which all other surgical revascularization methods have been compared. However, performing coronary revascularization on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) can result in myocardial ischemic injury, neurocognitive deficits, and strokes and activate inflammatory pathways that contribute to pulmonary, renal, and hematologic complications. OPCAB offered a promising alternative strategy that had the potential to decrease perioperative morbidity, mortality, and cost by eliminating CPB. In fact, throughout Asia and particularly in India, 95% of CABG surgery is performed offpump. In North America, OPCAB procedures peaked at 25% in 2004 and have declined steadily since that time.1 It is a more technically demanding procedure and results in less complete revascularization. There is growing concern that OPCAB is associated with reduced long-term graft patency and increased need for revascularization procedures and results in inferior long-term survival compared with traditional on-pump CABG surgery.In view of these concerns, should OPCAB be abandoned? The purpose of this review is to examine clinical data that most accurately compare the advantages and disadvantages of OPCAB to determine what, if any, role it should have in the practice of surgical coronary artery revascularization. To reach these conclusions, retrospective nonrandomized, prospective randomized, and meta-analyses trials will be reviewed. The effect of incomplete revascularization and conversion to conventional CABG will be examined. The relationship between OPCAB and the inflammatory response, neurological and cognitive changes, and quality of life will be studied, and the impact of OPCAB on sex, renal transplant recipients, and elderly patients will be determined. Retrospective StudiesRetrospective studies were largely single center and lacked randomization. Surgeons who were more skilled in OPCAB were more likely to perform these procedures. Hence, there was a significant selection bias. In most studies, the intentionto-treat principle was not honored. Therefore, if a patient was converted to an on-pump CABG, an adverse outcome associated with this patient would be attributed to the on-pump CABG and not the originally planned OPCAB. Earlier studies may have lacked proper stabilizing equipment and intracoronary perfusion devices. Many trials reported only short-term outcomes. The retrospective studies discussed in this section generally involve >1 surgeon, had larger sample sizes to detect statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes, and contained long-term data.One of the largest databases used to compare outcomes between OPCAB and on-pump CABG techniques involved the New York State Registry for CABG Surgery. Racz and coworkers 2 first...

show abstract

Section: Neurological and Cognitive Changesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Should Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Be Abandoned?

Lazar

2013

Circulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effect of off-pump CABG on stroke has been a polemical topic, with most reports showing no beneficial effect [53][54][55]. The two largest trials to date -CORONARY [2] with 4,752 patients and ROOBY [12] with 2,143 patients -showed no effect or trend for reduction in stroke.…”

Section: Considerations About This Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 13,524 patients from randomized trials

Sá

Ferraz

Escobar

et al. 2012

Revista Brasileira De Cirurgia Cardiovascular

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 13,524 patients from randomized trials Abstract Background: Most recent published meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) reduces incidence of stroke by 30% compared with on-pump CABG, but showed no difference in other outcomes. New RCTs were published, indicating need of new meta-analysis to investigate pooled results adding these further studies.Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for RCTs that compared outcomes (30-day mortality for all-cause, myocardial infarction or stroke) between off-pump versus on-pump CABG until May 2012. The principal summary measures were relative risk (RR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) and P values (considered statistically significant when <0.05). The RR's were combined across studies using DerSimonianLaird random effects weighted model. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were completed using the software Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 2 (Biostat Inc., Englewood, New Jersey, USA).Results: Forty-seven RCTs were identified and included 13,524 patients (6,758 for off-pump and 6,766 for on-pump CABG). There was no significant difference between off-

show abstract

“…Mais, l'hé té rogé né ité ainsi que les faibles effectifs des é tudes inclues rendent discutables les ré sultats de ces mé ta-analyses. De plus, une mé ta-analyse ne montre pas de diffé rences d'incidences d'AVCI [57]. Ainsi, ces derniè res anné es, une polé mique a é té lancé e sur l'inté rêt ré el du pontage à coeur battant par rapport à celui ré alisé sous CEC.…”

Section: Chirurgie Cardiaqueunclassified