Early results of off-pump coronary artery bypass

Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the operative results of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) and on-pump (conventional) coronary artery bypass (CCAB), to clarify qualitative problems and whether OPCAB is less invasive or not. Methods: OPCAB was consecutively performed in 63 patients and CCAB in 63 patients between July 1998 and December 2003. Results: The mean number of bypass grafts was 2.43 ±0.82 in the OPCAB group and 2.70±0.71 in the CCAB group (p=0.096). In-hospital mortality was 0% in the OPCAB group and 3.2% in the CCAB group. The incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction was 0% in the OPCAB group and 3.2% in the CCAB group. The incidence of postoperative major complications was significantly lower in the OPCAB group than in the CCAB group (OPCAB group=4 complications, CCAB group=13 complications). Cerebrovascular accidents occurred in 1.6% of patients in both groups. The incidence of sternal infection or mediastinitis was 0% in the OPCAB group and 3.2% in the CCAB group. The early patency rate of graft was 94.0% in the OPCAB group and 92.8% in the CCAB group, and was not significantly different (p=0.822). Conclusion: Operative mortality and major complications after surgery in OPCAB were lower than that in CCAB. The early patency rate in OPCAB was as good as that in CCAB. It is considered that OPCAB is less invasive and the quality of bypass in OPCAB is as good as that in CCAB.     

Off-pump multivessel coronary artery surgery in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, which may be more marked in high-risk patients. We evaluated our results of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) in high-risk patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and compared them with results in similar patients who underwent operation on cardiopulmonary bypass. METHODS: A total of 1,075 patients who underwent OPCAB between October 1996 and June 2001 and who had one or more of the following risk factors were included in the study: poor left ventricular function (EF < or = 30%), advanced age (> 70 years), left main stenosis, acute myocardial infarction, and redo coronary artery surgery. These patients were compared with 2,312 similar patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting on cardiopulmonary bypass during the same period. Preoperative risk factors, intraoperative variables, and postoperative results were analyzed and compared between two groups. RESULTS: The average number of grafts was 3.0 +/- 0.4 and 3.2 +/- 0.3 in the off-pump (OPCAB) and on-pump (CCAB) groups, respectively. Hospital mortality was 3.2% and 4.5% in OPCAB and CCAB groups respectively (p = 0.109). Perioperative myocardial infarction, requirement of inotropic agents, stroke, and renal dysfunction were comparable in two groups. Intubation time (19 +/- 5 vs 24 +/- 6 hours, p < 0.001), mean blood loss (362 +/- 53 vs 580 +/- 66 mL, p < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (14.3 vs 19.7%, p < 0.001), and prolonged ventilation (4.6 vs 7.6%, p = 0.002) were less in OPCAB group. Intensive care unit stay (20 +/- 8 hours) and hospital stay (6 +/- 3 days) were significantly less in the OPCAB group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Off-pump coronary artery surgery can be safely performed in high-risk patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Operative mortality is comparable to that associated with on-pump surgery, and avoidance of cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with reduced postoperative morbidity in these patients.     

Rationale of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for left main trunk disease

Objective: Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) remains controversial in patients with left main trunk (LMT) disease because of a concern about the ability to tolerate hemodynamic instability. This study examined the safety of OPCAB for LMT disease compared with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: Between April 1997 and December 2002, 257 consecutive patients with LMT stenosis who underwent CABG were enrolled. There were 98 patients who received CABG with the aid of cardiopulmonary bypass (CCAB group), and 159 patients who received OPCAB (OPCAB group). Results: There was no patient who converted to on-pump intraoperatively due to hemodynamic instability. Both intraoperative blood loss and blood transfusion incidence were lower in the OPCAB group. Postoperative course was similar, however, pulmonary complications were less observed postoperatively in the OPCAB group. No hypoperfusion syndrome was seen postoperatively in both groups. The average number of anastomosis was 3.2±1.1 in the CCAB group and 3.2±1.0 in the OPCAB group (p=0.645). Total arterial OPCAB with an aorta no-touch technique was achieved in 142 patients (89.3%) in OPCAB group. Postoperative angiography was performed in 95 patients in CCAB (96.9%), and in 141 patients in OPCAB (89.8%). Although graft patency of arterial grafts was good in both groups (100% in CCAB and 98.3% in OPCAB), saphenous vein graft patency was slightly lower in both groups (93.4% in CCAB and 76.5% in OPCAB) compared with arterial grafts. Conclusion: OPCAB allows a safe and effective treatment of LMT disease.     

Early and medium-term results after on-pump and off-pump coronary artery surgery: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND: Comparative publications on beating-heart off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) surgery versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CCAB) surgery frequently do not offer conclusive information because of investigator bias. METHODS: Trying to eliminate this problem, a propensity score analysis of the data of all CCAB patients (n = 517) and OPCAB patients (n = 133) operated on by the same surgeons during the same time period (1998 to 2001) was applied. After matching patients with similar propensity score values, 97 CCAB patients and 72 OPCAB patients entered the final analysis. RESULTS: Early results were similar in both groups: the 30-day mortality reached 1.4% in the CCAB group and 2.8% in the OPCAB group; strokes did not happen. Perioperative myocardial infarctions occurred in 4.1% of the CCAB patients and 4.3% of the OPCAB patients. Drainage blood loss in the first 24 hours after surgery (830 +/- 687 mL, CCAB group; and 909 +/- 678 mL, OPCAB group) was similar (p = 0.06) in both groups. Medium term results (freedom from percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or reoperation, freedom from myocardial infarction, freedom from stroke, and the quality of life) also were not significantly different between the off-pump and on-pump groups after a mean follow-up of 27 +/- 11 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that elective-surgery patients with coronary artery disease can be operated on either on-pump or off-pump with the same early and late mortality and morbidity.     

体外循环与非体外循环下冠脉搭桥术患者术中血液动力学的比较

目的比较体外循环(CPB)与非CPB下冠脉搭桥术患者术中血液动力学的变化。方法同期行CPB下冠状动脉搭桥术(CABG)与非CPB下冠状动脉搭桥术(OPCAB)患者各70例,分别为CABG组和OPCAB组,分别在麻醉诱导后手术开始前(术前)和术毕用Swan-Ganz导管监测血液动力学指标。结果与术前比较,两组术毕心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)、肺动脉平均压(PAMP)、肺毛细血管嵌压(PAWP)、中心静脉压(CVP)及左室作功指数(LVSWI)差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),心输出量(CO)、心脏指数(CI)均升高;OPCAB组术毕心搏指数(SVI)升高,体循环阻力指数(SVRI)、肺循环阻力指数(PVRI)降低(P<0.05),CABG组术毕SVI、SVRI、PVRI差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);与CABG组比较,OPCAB组术毕SVRI、PVRI降低(P<0.05)。结论两组患者术后心功能均得到了改善,OPCAB 组在改善心功能、降低体、肺循环阻力方面,优于CABG组。     

Safe evolution towards routine off-pump coronary artery bypass: negotiating the learning curve

Objective: Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) hopes to avoid morbidity associated with cardiopulmonary bypass, improving clinical outcomes. Yet its technical difficulty and unfamiliarity raise concern that adoption of OPCAB might be associated with poorer outcomes during each surgeon's ‘learning curve’. We examined trends in patient selection over time as a single surgeon's practice evolved to routine OPCAB. Methods: Between 10-1-96 and 12-31-01, 1479 consecutive patients had isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Clinical data were gathered prospectively and reviewed retrospectively. Trends in adoption of OPCAB and clinical outcomes were examined. Results: There were 756 OPCAB and 723 CABG/cardiopulmonary bypass patients. The practice evolved from 90% conventional CABG to 93% OPCAB. An abrupt transition coincided with evolution of techniques to expose the obtuse marginal arteries, and improvements in suction-based coronary stabilizers. Mortality was 1.0% for the off-pump group and 2.1% for the on-pump group. Careful patient selection helped maintain acceptable outcomes during the ‘learning curve’. Patients with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction, left main disease, and complex three vessel disease were excluded from OPCAB until significant experience (>200 cases) was attained. Presently, all isolated coronary bypass cases are candidates for OPCAB except patients with ischemic ventricular arrhythmias, those in cardiac arrest, and those for whom previous left pneumonectomy or deep pectus excavatum prevent rightward mobilization of heart. Conclusions: Despite a significant learning curve, evolution to routine OPCAB can be achieved while maintaining good patient outcomes. The development of specialized techniques, coronary stabilizers, and apical suction devices allows the application of OPCAB to virtually all coronary bypass patients, as surgeon experience matures.     

Surgical revascularization in patients with poor left ventricular function: on- or off-pump?

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular dysfunction and low ejection fraction (EF) are at high-risk of complication and mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The potential success of off-pump CABG in this high-risk population has yet to be determined. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcome of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) and conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) in patients with poor left ventricular function, all from a single institution. METHODS: Data on patient demographics, preoperative risk factors, operative and postoperative outcomes were collected retrospectively on all patients having undergone isolated CABG between January 1, 1998, and October 31, 2001. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients (31 OPCAB/46 CCAB) were identified as having an ejection fraction (EF) of < or = 0.35. Of these, 52 had EF < or = 0.30 (21 OPCAB/31 CCAB) and 31 patients had EF < or = 0.25 (10 OPCAB/21 CCAB). Operative mortality was 3.2% after the OPCAB procedure versus 10.9% for the CCAB (p = 0.39). Use of intraaortic balloon pump (6.5%) was rarely required. The OPCAB procedure resulted in significantly less requirement for blood transfusions (p < 0.05), fewer distal anastomoses per patient (p < 0.01), and a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation (p < 0.05) compared with CCAB. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with poor left ventricular function may undergo surgical revascularization using off-pump technique with relatively good results and low mortality levels. The lower number of grafts performed on the off-pump procedure did not seem to affect clinical outcomes.     

Myocardial revascularization in patients with low ejection fraction < or =35%: effect of pump technique on early morbidity and mortality

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Left ventricular dysfunction is an important predictor of in-hospital mortality. Surgical risk among these patients remains high. The present study is conducted to evaluate the difference in early morbidity and mortality among patients with compromised left ventricular function (LVF) after myocardial revascularization using either off-pump or on-pump coronary artery bypass graft. METHODS: Between April 2000 and April 2004, 150 patients with ejection fraction (EF) < or =35% underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. Eighty-four patients underwent conventional bypass (mean EF 30.1%+/- 4.2) and 66 patients had off-pump coronary artery bypass (mean EF 27.5%+/- 5.5). Different variables (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) were evaluated and compared. Determination of operation risk was done using EuroSCORE. Patients who underwent OPCAB were more risky due to a high percentage of associated comorbidities, mean EuroSCORE was 12.96 +/- 13.21 in comparison to 8.47 +/- 10.22 in CCAB. RESULTS: The mean operative mortality was 8.7%. Patients who underwent OPCAB had a lower operative mortality than CCAB (6.1% vs. 10.7%) inspite of a higher preoperative predicted risk score. Completeness of revascularization was higher among the CCAB group (85.7% vs. 69.7%; p = 0.01). Subsequently, the mean number of grafts was significantly higher among this group (3.4+/-0.7 vs. 2.0 +/-0.9; p < 0.001). On the other hand, morbidity was significantly higher in CCAB (35.7% vs. 19.7%; p = 0.03). However, the incidence of both myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation was more among OPCAB. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with left ventricular dysfunction are high-risk group. These patients can benefit from myocardial revascularization using either off-pump or conventional CABG, but both are associated with a higher mortality and morbidity than those with normal ventricle. The use of off-pump CABG resulted in better clinical outcome and mortality, but less number of grafts performed than those with conventional CABG especially in patients with lowest EF.     

Does off‐pump coronary artery bypass grafting beneficially affect renal function?

BACKGROUND: Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been reported to beneficially affect renal function, but this remains to be confirmed. The purpose of the present paper was to study the effects of off-pump CABG on renal function and analyse predictors of postoperative renal impairment in patients who received off-pump CABG. METHODS: A total of 451 patients who underwent isolated CABG between January 1999 and August 2003 were retrospectively studied. No patient was receiving dialysis. A total of 300 patients (228 men) underwent off-pump CABG (off-pump group) and 151 patients (104 men) underwent on-pump CABG (on-pump group). Perioperative serum creatinine levels and creatinine ratios (peak postoperative creatinine level/preoperative creatinine level) were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Renal impairment (serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL) developed postoperatively in 12.7% of the off-pump group and 18.5% of the on-pump group (P = 0.1). The creatinine ratio was significantly lower in the off-pump group (1.2 +/- 0.4) than in the on-pump group (1.4 +/- 0.7, P = 0.003). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the strongest predictors of postoperative renal impairment in off-pump CABG were left ventricular dysfunction (odds ratio 10.8) and multivessel grafting (odds ratio 4.3). CONCLUSIONS: Off-pump CABG provides better renal protection than on-pump CABG. However, perioperative renal function should be closely monitored in patients who have left ventricular dysfunction or who undergo multivessel grafting, even when off-pump CABG is performed.     

非体外循环与体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植血管中远期通畅率比较

目的 比较非体外循环不停跳与体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植手术后中远期移植血管的通畅率.方法 对同一术者行冠状动脉旁路移植手术后5年以上病例50例.按手术方式分为两组.第1组采用传统体外循环下进行冠状动脉旁路移植(体外循环组,25例);第2组采用非体外循环不停跳技术进行冠状动脉旁路移植(非体外循环组,25例).对所有病例进行冠状动脉造影随访,比较两组移植血管的通畅情况.结果 两组均男21例,女4例.第1组手术年龄(55.4±8.9)岁;随访70～110个月,平均(86.52±12.48)个月;移植血管共83支,其中动脉移植血管41支,静脉移植血管42支,平均移植血管(3.32±0.63)支/例;随访移植血管通畅61支,狭窄6支,闭塞16支,动脉移植物通畅率为78.05%,静脉通畅率69.05%,总通畅率73.49%.第2组手术年龄(58.2±9.09)岁;移植血管共65支,其中动脉移植血管31支,静脉移植血管34支,平均移植血管(2.52±0.71)支/例,随访64～99个月,平均(82.68±12.48)个月;随访移植血管通畅47支,狭窄4支,闭塞14支,动脉移植物通畅率为74.19%,静脉通畅率70.59%,总通畅率72.31%.结论 非体外循环不停跳冠状动脉旁路移植手术移植血管中远期通畅率与传统体外循环手术一致,均可达到较好的中远期疗效.

Abstract：

Objective Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) is used more widely in recent years in China. However, there is an argument on benefits and risks of off-pump surgery. Many studies shown that OPCAB had more benefits in short-term outcomes than conventional coronary artery bypass grafting(CCABG). But evidences from other studies suggested that OPCAB resulted in less long-term graft patency as compared with on-pump surgery. This study examined the longterm graft patency of OPCAB and CCABG performed by one surgeon. Methods 50 patients who had received surgical revascularization by a surgeon for more than 5 years were reviewed, 25 patients received conventional coronary artery bypass grafting ( group 1 ) and 25 patients received OPCAB ( group 2). All patients had angiograms for compareing the graft patency between the two groups. Results Among 25 patients in group 1,21 were male and 4 were female. The mean age of patients at surgery was (55.4 ±8.9) years. 15 cases had unstable angina, 16 patients had old myocardial infarction and 6 cases had diabetes.The ejection fraction (EF) was 0.58 ±0.14. The mean number of bypasses per patient was 3.32 ±0.63. Mean duration of operation was (3.58 ± 0. 82) hours. Mean follow-up duration was ( 86.52 ± 12.48) months. 83 grafts were evaluated for patency ( open vs. closed) and were graded by Fitzgibbon as grade A ( excellent graft), B ( impaired graft, with a stenosis of ≥50%, or a diameter less than 50% of the grafted artery), or O ( completely occluded). The graft patency was 73.49%, 61grafts were graded as Fitzgibbon A, 6 grafts as Fitzgibbon B and 16 grafts as Fitzgibbon 0. 25 patients were in group 2, 21males and 4 females. The mean age of patients at procedure was (58.2 ± 9.09) years, 11 patients had unstable angina, 13 patients had old myocardial infarction and 6 cases had diabetes. The ejection fraction (EF) was 0.59 ± 0. 14. Conclusion No 2011.03.013 difference in long-term graft patency was identified between on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Off-pump oronary artery bypass grafting preformed by an experienced surgeon may gain similar long-term graft patency to that of conventional bypass.     

Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass is gaining popularity as an alternative to conventional on-pump technique for myocardial revascularization. This includes minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and full sternotomy off-pump (OPCAB) methods. These two approaches should be evaluated for financial and clinical appropriateness. METHODS: Records of patients who had single or double bypass (internal mammary artery and/or saphenous vein) grafts between January 1997 and June 1998 were reviewed. These included 44 MIDCAB, 62 OPCAB, and 243 conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) patients. Univariate analysis was applied to pre, intra, and postoperative variables, comparing MIDCAB and OPCAB to the CCAB group. Procedural cost information was obtained from participating institutions. RESULTS: MIDCAB patients compared to CCAB patients had a higher predicted risk (5.4+/-11 versus 2.3+/-2.8, p = 0.012) and OPCAB patients had a predicted risk of 5.3+/-7.8. MIDCAB and OPCAB procedures required less operating room time and blood utilization. Observed operative mortality rates were MIDCAB 4.5%, OPCAB 1.6%, and CCAB 2.8% (not significant). Mean hospital costs were CCAB at $19,000, OPCAB at $15,000, and $17,000 for MIDCAB. CONCLUSIONS: Off pump procedures currently reflect acute episode-of-care cost savings over CCAB.     

非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术的心肌保护

目的　比较非体外循环心脏跳动下冠状动脉旁路移植术 (OPCAB)与常规体外循环下冠状动脉旁路移植术 (CABG)的心肌保护效果。方法　将 70例冠状动脉粥样硬化病人分成 2组 ,行非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术组 (非体外循环组 35例 ) ,间断冷氧合血心脏停搏液冠状动脉旁路移植术组 (冷血停跳组 35例 )。 2组病人术前心功能、年龄、性别、体质量差异无统计学意义 ;各组于围术期不同时点分别抽血测定肌酸激酶同工酶 (CK MB)、心肌肌钙蛋白T(cTnT)。关胸前每组各随机取 2例病人心尖区心肌 ,行心肌超微结构观察。结果　非体外循环组术中、术后各时间点CK MB、cTnT与冷血停跳组比较差异有显著性 (P <0 0 5 ) ;非体外循环组心肌超微结构表明心肌保护效果明显优于后者。结论　非体外循环组心肌保护效果优于冷血停跳组。与CK MB相比 ,cTnT是评价心肌损害的更特异、更敏感的指标。     

The effect off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery on in-hospital mortality and morbidity.

OBJECTIVE: Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery is being increasingly reported to show better outcomes compared to conventional on bypass grafting. We examined the effect of OPCAB on in-hospital mortality and morbidity, while adjusting for patient and disease characteristics, in four institutions in the North West of England. METHODS: Between April 1997 and March 2001, 10,941 consecutive patients underwent isolated coronary artery bypass surgery at these four institutions. Of these, 7.7% were performed off-pump. We used logistic regression to examine the effect of OPCAB on in-hospital mortality and morbidity after adjusting for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: The crude odds ratio (OR) for death (off-pump versus on-pump coronary bypass grafting) was 0.48 (95% confidence interval, CI 0.26-0.92; P=0.023). After adjustment for all major risk factors, the OR for death was 0.59 (95% CI 0.31-1.12; P=0.105). Off-pump patients had a substantially reduced risk of post-operative stroke (0.6 versus 2.3%, respectively; adjusted OR 0.26 (95% CI 0.09-0.70; P=0.008) and a significant reduction in post-operative hospital stay. Other morbidity outcomes were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Off-pump coronary artery bypass incurs no increased risk of in-hospital mortality. In contrast, there is a significant reduction in morbidity in patients undergoing off-pump coronary bypass grafting when compared to that performed on cardiopulmonary bypass.     

Is low ejection fraction safe for off-pump coronary bypass operation?

BACKGROUND: Does the manipulation of the heart during off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) procedure further compromise the hemodynamic stability of a patient with depressed left ventricular function compared with the conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) approach? Does this manipulation induce a more dramatic hypoperfused state that may contribute to an increase in the incidence of related complications or mortality? This retrospective review of data attempted to answer the above concern. METHODS: Between January 1, 1998, and June 30, 1999, 177 patients with ejection fractions of 30% or less underwent full sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting at our institution. Of these patients, 45 underwent OPCAB procedures and 132 patients underwent CCAB. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables as identified by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database were compared using univariate and logistical regression analysis. RESULTS: Despite recognized hemodynamic derangement during cardiac displacement, these groups of OPCAB patients appeared to tolerate the procedure well. Univariate analysis of cardiac enzyme leak and blood loss was statistically significant in the OPCAB patients. Utilizing regression analysis, cardiopulmonary bypass was the only predictor for all postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Multivessel coronary artery bypass utilizing the OPCAB approach in patients with depressed left ventricular function of equal to or less than 30% is appropriate and applicable. Analysis of CCAB and OPCAB variables was nonsignificant except for operative and postoperative blood loss and peak cardiac enzyme leak. Attention to intraoperative detail and hemodynamic management could be credited for the success with OPCAB.     

Stroke after conventional versus minimally invasive coronary artery bypass

BACKGROUND: Postoperative stroke is a serious complication after coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump), and portends higher morbidity and mortality. It is unknown whether an off-pump cardiopulmonary bypass (OPCAB) approach may yield a lower stroke rate over conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: From June 1994 to December 2000, OPCAB was performed in 2,320 patients and compared with 8,069 patients who had on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, during the same period of time. The patients undergoing OPCAB were randomly matched to on-pump patients by propensity score. A logistic regression model was used to test the difference in the postoperative stroke rate between OPCAB and on-pump procedures controlling for the correlation between matched sets. A multiple logistic regression model predicting the risk of stroke adjusted by stroke risk factors and operation type was also computed. RESULTS: Matches by propensity score were found for 72% of the patients undergoing OPCAB. Patients undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting were 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.0 to 3.1, p = 0.03) times more likely to suffer a stroke postoperatively than OPCAB patients after controlling for preoperative risk factors through matching. Independent predictors of stroke identified from the multiple logistic model included on-pump operation (versus OPCAB operation), female gender, 4 to 6 vessels grafted (versus <4 grafts), hypertension, history of previous cerebrovascular accident, carotid artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and depressed ejection fraction. CONCLUSIONS: Off-pump cardiopulmonary bypass avoids the risks of cardiopulmonary bypass and atrial trauma. A substantially lower stroke rate suggests that OPCAB is a neurologically safe treatment option for revascularization.     

Coronary artery bypass in patients 80 years and over: is off-pump the operation of choice?

BACKGROUND: Octogenarians are at increased risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality after coronary artery bypass. In this study we compared our experience with patients undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass (CAB) and those undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) to assess outcomes. METHODS: We used hospital database analysis in patients 80 years and older who underwent nonemergent coronary artery bypass with (N = 169) and without (N = 60) cardiopulmonary bypass from January 1999 through June 2001. RESULTS: Both groups were at increased perioperative risk based on the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk model (7.7% OPCAB vs 5.8% CAB, p = 0.03). There were no operative deaths in the OPCAB group but there were eight (4.7%) in the CAB group (p = NS). Perioperative stroke (0% OPCAB vs 7.1% CAB, p = 0.04), prolonged ventilation (1.7% OPCAB vs 11.8% CAB, p = 0.02), and transfusion rate (33% OPCAB vs 70.4% CAB, p < 0.001) were all lower in the OPCAB group. A shorter hospital stay (6.3 days OPCAB vs 11.5 days CAB, p < 0.001) resulted in lower hospital cost in the OPCAB group ($9,363 OPCAB vs $12,312 CAB, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in elderly patients was associated with fewer complications, a shorter hospital stay, and lower hospital cost. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting may be the operation of choice for octogenarians requiring surgical myocardial revascularization.     

Off-pump coronary artery bypass

OBJECTIVES: Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on the beating heart has become popular procedure in cardiac surgery and its initial results appeared favorable. We report our early and mid-term results of off-pump CABG performed at Shin-Tokyo Hospital. METHODS: Medical records of patients undergoing off-pump or conventional on-pump CABG from September 1, 1996, to August 31, 1999 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients underwent off-pump CABG were further classified into 2 groups; MIDCAB (Off-pump CABG for single vessel revascularization via a small skin incision) and OPCAB (off-pump CABG mainly approached via midline sternotomy) group. Their preoperative, perioperative, and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Among a total of 995 cases of CABG, 194 cases were off-pump CABG (male/female 142/52, mean age 66.9). The mean number of distal anastomoses in off-pump CABG was 1.9 +/- 0.9 (1.0 +/- 0.0 in MIDCAB and 2.3 +/- 0.7 in OPCAB), which was significantly fewer than in on-pump CABG (3.6 +/- 1.1), with p < 0.0001. Intubation time (5.3 +/- 5.7 hours in off-pump CABG vs 13.1 +/- 24.2 hours in on-pump CABG), ICU stay (1.7 +/- 1.1 vs 3.2 +/- 3.0 days), and postoperative hospital stay (14.0 +/- 7.9 vs 18.1 +/- 12.1 days) in off-pump CABG were significantly shorter than in on-pump CABG (p < 0.0001). In the off-pump CABG group, there were no in-hospital deaths and 14 major complications, fewer than in on-pump CABG (8 hospital deaths and 114 major complications). Postoperative angiography before hospital discharge was conducted in 80 patients (41.2%) and showed 2 occlusions, giving a graft patency rate of 98.6% in the off-pump group. During follow-up (0.9 +/- 0.6 year) period, there were 5 non-cardiac deaths and 20 cardiac events in the off-pump group. The actuarial survival rate at 36 months was 94.6% for off-pump CABG, showing no significant difference from the rate for conventional CABG patients (95.2% at 36 month, p = NS) The event-free rate was 84.0% at 36 months in off-pump CABG patients; however, which was less favorable than on-pump CABG patients (88.0% at 36 months, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both in-hospital and mid-term results for off-pump CABG patients were acceptable. Isolated CABG can thus be safely performed without cardiopulmonary bypass. Advances in coronary stabilization have contributed to these improved results. The observed long-term cardiac events may be related to incomplete revascularization.     

Simultaneous Esophagectomy and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Without Cardiopulmonary Bypass: Report of a Case

We successfully performed off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) with concomitant esophagectomy in a 77-year-old man with esophageal cancer and severe stenosis of the anterior descending branch of the left coronary artery. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting was performed via median sternotomy and esophagectomy was done via the left thoracoabdominal approach. The patient was discharged with a patent graft 8 weeks after surgery. The benefits of OPCAB include that it is less invasive and heparinization can be avoided. This case report demonstrates that simultaneous OPCAB and esophagectomy is advantageous for a selected population with surgically correctable coronary artery disease and resectable esophageal cancer.     

Application of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with acute coronary syndrome requiring emergency surgery.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) has become a more applicable procedure, even in patients with multi-vessel disease. However, the role of OPCAB for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) requiring emergency revascularization has not been established yet. We reviewed our results of emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with ACS. Seventy-two patients with ACS who underwent emergency CABG were studied. Twenty-five underwent OPCAB and 47 on-pump CABG. OPCAB was mainly indicated for patients who were possibly at risk for cardiopulmonary bypass. When the coronary anatomy was suitable in younger or less risky patients, OPCAB was performed. Patients with multi-vessel disease or with a critical left main trunk lesion were not excluded from OPCAB. The mean number of grafted vessels was 2.6 per patient in the OPCAB group, and 3.8 per patient in the on-pump group (p<0.0001). However, none of the patients in either group required postoperative catheter intervention. Mean operative time was 195 minutes in the OPCAB group and 286 minutes in the on-pump group (p<0.0001). There were three postoperative deaths in the OPCAB group and four in the on-pump group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that preoperative cardiogenic shock was the only significant predictor for postoperative death (odds ratio, 7.33). The selection of the on-pump procedure or OPCAB did not correlate with operative death. Thus, we conclude that OPCAB can be performed safely and effectively in selected patients with ACS requiring emergency coronary revascularization.     

Effects of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on function and viability of circulating endothelial progenitor cells

OBJECTIVE: Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting may result in fewer myocardial and vascular complications than on-pump. Although differences in aortic manipulations likely play a role, the systemic responses of endothelial progenitor cells to both types of operations have not been examined. We sought to examine endothelial progenitor cell characteristics after off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: Twenty patients undergoing off-pump or on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting were prospectively enrolled and had endothelial progenitor cells isolated and cultured from their peripheral blood before and 24 hours after surgery. Endothelial progenitor cells were identified by fluorescent dual lectin/low-density lipoprotein binding. Their number, phenotype characteristics, proliferation, migratory function, and viability were determined in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: Patient characteristics and numbers of grafts were equivalent. Endothelial progenitor cells had similar phenotypes between groups before and after surgery. Off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting resulted in similar increases in endothelial progenitor cell numbers and showed equivalent proliferation activity. However, endothelial progenitor cell migratory function was higher in off-pump patients (25.3 +/- 5.0 vs 5.0 +/- 1.0 cells per high-powered field for off-pump vs on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively; P = .04). Postoperative endothelial progenitor cell viability adjusted for preoperative baseline was also higher after off-pump than on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting by 72.4% +/- 14.6% (P = .01). Endothelial progenitor cells of on-pump patients were less viable after surgery than before surgery, whereas the reverse was observed in off-pump patients. CONCLUSIONS: Both on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting elicit mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells into the peripheral blood. On-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, however, impairs the migratory function and viability of these vascular repair cells, which are conversely preserved after off-pump surgery. Further work is necessary to determine whether the function and viability of endothelial progenitor cells correlate with vascular outcomes and whether their therapeutic modulation may one day benefit coronary artery bypass grafting patients.