Objective: The aim of our study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes and the grafts patency rates of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent urgent or emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
Materials: Participants in two previous studies comprising 207 STEMI patients undergoing on-pump (145 patients) or off-pump (62 patients) coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in our institution were prospectively followed to assess late mortality, graft patency, and major adverse cardiac-related event (MACE) rates. Graft patency was evaluated by multi-detector computed tomography angiography 64-slice scan. Mean times of graft implantation were 38±16 months and 37±14 months in on-pump and off-pump, respectively. Follow-up data were obtained in all patients and was 100% complete.
Results: Late mortality rate was 7.4% (10 patients) in the on-pump and 6.5% (4 patients) in off-pump groups (p=0.45). Five-year overall survival rate (±SE) was 93.5±2.1% and 92.6±1.9% in the off-pump vs on-pump, respectively. Five years’ freedom from cardiac-related death was 94.9±2.9% in the on-pump group vs 96.8±3.2% in the off-pump group (p=0.25). Five years’ freedom from cardiac-related events was 89.7±1.6% in the on-pump group versus 93.5±1.8% in the off-pump group (p=0.32). In all patients, a total of 449/491 (91.5%) grafts were patent. Percentages of overall grafts classified as patent were similar in the on-pump group (90.7% - 322/355 conduits) versus the off-pump group (91% - 133/146 conduits). Graft patency rates were also similar between the two groups with regard to arterial and saphenous vein conduits, and with regard to different branches of the coronary arteries grafted.
Conclusion: Our data suggest that off-pump CABG patients have the same late mortality, MACEs, and graft patency rates as conventional cardioplegic cardiac arrest CABG patients. In our opinion, urgent or emergency CABG for patients with STEMI can be done either way.
LytleBWSabikJF. On-pump and off-pump bypass surgery: tools for revascularization. Circulation2004; 109: 810–812.
2.
HannanELWuCSmithCR. Off-pump versus on pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Differences in short-term outcomes and in long-term mortality and need for subsequent revascularization. Circulation2007; 116: 1145–1152.
3.
SellkeFWDiMaioJMCaplanLR. American Heart Association. Comparing on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: numerous studies but few conclusions: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association council on cardiovascular surgery and anesthesia in collaboration with the interdisciplinary working group on quality of care and outcomes research. Circulation2005; 111: 2858–2864.
4.
PuskasJDWilliamsWHDukePG. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting provides complete revascularization with reduced myocardial injury, transfusion requirements, and length of stay: a prospective randomized comparison of two hundred unselected patients undergoing off-pump versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2003; 125: 797–808.
5.
LeeJDLeeSTTsushimaWT. Benefits of off-pump bypass on neurologic and clinical morbidity: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg2003; 76: 18–26.
6.
PuskasJDWilliamsWHMahoneyEM. Off-pump vs conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: early and 1-year graft patency, cost, and quality of life outcomes: a randomized trial. JAMA2004; 291: 1841–1849.
7.
KhanNEDe SouzaAMisterR. A randomized comparison of off-pump and on-pump multivessel coronary artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med2004; 350: 21–28.
8.
OoAYGraysonADPatelNCPullanDMDihmisWCFabriBM. Is off pump coronary artery justified in EUROSCORE high-risk cases? A propensity score analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2003; 2: 660–664.
9.
DarwazahAKAbu Sham’aRAHusseinEHawariMHIsmailH. Myocardial revascularization in patients with low ejection fraction < or = 35%: effect of pump technique on early morbidity and mortality. J Card Surg2006; 21: 22–27.
10.
RastanAJEckensteinJIHentschelB. Emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery for acute coronary syndrome: beating heart versus conventional cardioplegic cardiac arrest strategies. Circulation2006; 114(I suppl): I477–I485.
11.
FattouchKGuccioneFDioguardiSSampoganroRCorradoERuvoloG. Off-pump vs on-pump myocardial revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2009; 137: 650–657.
12.
AngeliniGDCullifordLSmithDK. Effects of on- and off-pump coronary artery surgery on graft patency, survival, and health-related quality of life: long-term follow up of 2 randomized trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2009Feb; 137(2): 295–303.
13.
FattouchKBiancoGSpezialeG. Beneficial effects of C1 esterase inhibitor in ST-elevation myocardial infarction in patients who underwent surgical reperfusion: a randomized double-blind study. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg2007; (32): 326–332.
14.
MohrRMoshkovitchYShapiraIAmirGHodHGurevitchJ. Coronary bypass without cardiopulmonary bypass for patient with acute myocardial infarction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg1999; 118: 50–56.
15.
ChengDCBainbridgeDMartinJENovickRJ. Does off pump coronary artery bypass reduce mortality, morbidity and resource utilization when compared with conventional coronary artery bypass? A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Anesthesiology2005; 102: 188–203.
16.
LockerCShapiraIPazYKramerAGurevitchJMatsaM. Emergency myocardial revascularization for acute myocardial infarction: survival benefits of avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg2000; 17: 234–238.
17.
Al-RuzzehSGeorgeSBustamiM. Effect of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery on clinical, angiographic, neurocognitive, and quality of life outcomes: randomized controlled trial. BMJ2006; 332: 1365.
18.
WidimiskyPStrakaZStrosP. One year coronary graft patency: a randomized comparison between off-pump and on-pump surgery – angiographic result of the PRAGUE-4 trial. Circulation2004; 110: 3418–3423.
19.
NathoeHMvan DijkDJansenEW. Octopus Study Group. A comparison of on-pump and off-pump coronary bypass surgery in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med2003; 348: 394–402.
20.
TakagiHTanabashiTKawaiNKatoTUmemotoT. Off-pump coronary artery bypass sacrifices graft patency: meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2007; 133: e 2-3.
21.
ParolariAAlamanniFPolvaniG. Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing off-pump with on-pump coronary artery bypass graft patency. Ann Thorac Surg2005; 80: 2121–2125.
22.
ShroyerALGroverFLHattlerB. Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) Study Group. On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med2009Nov5; 361(19): 1827–1837.
23.
KobayashiJTashiroTOchiM. Japanese Off-pump Coronary Revascularization Investigation (JOCRI) Study Group. Early outcome of a randomized comparison of off-pump and on-pump multiple arterial coronary revascularization. Circulation2005; 112(9 suppl): I338–I343.
24.
LingaasPSHolPKLunbladR. Clinical and radiological outcome of off-pump coronary surgery at 12 months follow-up: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg2006; 81: 2089–2096.
25.
KussOSalviatiBVBorgermannJ. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score analyses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2010; 140: 829–835.
