Redo coronary artery bypass grafting (redo CABG) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the evidence comparing the outcomes of off-pump with on-pump redo CABG.
Methods:
Studies were systematically searched and identified using PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) by two researchers independently. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, and the secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, post-operative complications, completeness of revascularization, blood transfusion rate, duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital stays.
Results:
The 21 studies including 4,889 patients were enrolled in our meta-analysis. Compared with on-pump, the off-pump technique was associated with significantly reduced 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.26-0.72, p = 0.001). Moreover, a notably decreased in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.39-0.76, p = 0.0004) and incidence of post-operative new-onset atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, low cardiac output state, blood transfusion rate (OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.35-0.60, p < 0.00001; OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.38-0.78, p = 0.0007; OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.37-0.70, p < 0.0001; OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.20-0.47, p < 0.00001; OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.14-0.61, p = 0.001) and significantly shortened duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital stays (mean difference [MD] = −8.21 h, 95% CI = −11.74 to −4.68, p < 0.00001; MD = −0.77 d, 95% CI = −0.81 to −0.73, p < 0.00001; MD = −2.24 d, 95% CI = −3.17 to −1.32, p < 0.00001) could be observed when comparing the outcomes of off-pump with on-pump redo CABG. There was nonsignificant difference between off-pump and on-pump redo CABG in completeness of revascularization.
Conclusion:
In patients undergoing redo CABG surgery, the off-pump technique was associated with decreased mortality, less post-operative complications when compared to on-pump.
VilahurGBadimonJJBugiardiniR, et al. Perspectives: the burden of cardiovascular risk factors and coronary heart disease in Europe and worldwide. Eur Heart J Suppl2014; 16(Suppl. A): A7–A11.
2.
BenjaminEJViraniSSCallawayCW, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2018 update: a report from the american heart association. Circulation2018; 137: e67–e492.
3.
WongND.Epidemiological studies of CHD and the evolution of preventive cardiology. Nat Rev Cardiol2014; 11: 276–289.
4.
GazianoTABittonAAnandS, et al. Growing epidemic of coronary heart disease in low- and middle-income countries. Curr Probl Cardiol2010; 35: 72–115.
5.
MathersCDLoncarD.Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med2006; 3: e442.
6.
LamyADevereauxPJPrabhakaranD, et al. Off-pump or on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting at 30 days. N Engl J Med2012; 366: 1489–1497.
7.
HeadSJBorgermannJOsnabruggeRL, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting: part 2-optimizing outcomes and future prospects. Eur Heart J2013; 34: 2873–2886.
8.
SerruysPWMoriceMCKappeteinAP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med2009; 360: 961–972.
9.
MohrFWMoriceMCKappeteinAP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet2013; 381: 629–638.
10.
ThuijsDKappeteinAPSerruysPW, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial. Lancet2019; 394: 1325–1334.
11.
HolmNRMakikallioTLindsayMM, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial. Lancet2019; 395: 191–199.
12.
KilicASultanIYuhDD, et al. Ventricular assist device implantation in the elderly: nationwide outcomes in the United States. J Card Surg2013; 28: 183–189.
13.
BiancoVKilicAGleasonTG, et al. Longitudinal outcomes of dialysis-dependent patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. J Card Surg2019; 34: 110–117.
14.
AveryGJLeySJHillJD, et al. Cardiac surgery in the octogenarian: evaluation of risk, cost, and outcome. Ann Thorac Surg2001; 71: 591–596.
15.
NeumannFJSousa-uvaMAhlssonA, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J2019; 40: 87–165.
16.
GhantaRKKanekoTGammieJS, et al. Evolving trends of reoperative coronary artery bypass grafting: an analysis of the society of thoracic surgeons adult cardiac surgery database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2013; 145: 364–372.
17.
GalloMTrivediJRMonrealG, et al. Risk factors and outcomes in redo coronary artery bypass grafting. Heart Lung Circ2019; 29: 384–389.
18.
MishraYKCollisonSPMalhotraR, et al. Ten-year experience with single-vessel and multivessel reoperative off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2008; 135: 527–532.
19.
RufaMIUrsulescuANagibR, et al. Off-pump versus on-pump redo coronary artery bypass grafting: a propensity score analysis of long-term follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2019; 159: 447–456.e2.
HoulindKFenger-GronMHolmeSJ, et al. Graft patency after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery is inferior even with identical heparinization protocols: results from the Danish On-pump versus Off-pump Randomization Study (DOORS). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2014; 148: 1812–1819.e2.
22.
AscioneRLloydCTUnderwoodMJ, et al. Inflammatory response after coronary revascularization with or without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg2000; 69: 1198–1204.
23.
WangWWangYPiaoH, et al. Early and medium outcomes of on-pump beating-heart versus off-pump CABG in patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction. Braz J Cardiovasc Sur2019; 34: 62–69.
24.
ShroyerALGroverFLHattlerB, et al. On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med2009; 361: 1827–1837.
25.
CalafioreAMTeodoriGDi GiammarcoG, et al. Multiple arterial conduits without cardiopulmonary bypass: early angiographic results. Ann Thorac Surg1999; 67: 450–456.
GaudinoMAngeliniGDAntoniadesC, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: 30 years of debate. J Am Heart Assoc2018; 7: e009934.
28.
GaudinoMBenedettoUBakaeenF, et al. Off- versus on-pump coronary surgery and the effect of follow-up length and surgeons’ experience: a meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc2018; 7: e010034.
29.
SepehripourAHSasoSHarlingL, et al. Does off-pump coronary revascularization reduce mortality in re-operative coronary artery surgery? A meta-analysis of observational studies. Perfusion2013; 28: 340–349.
30.
SepehripourAHHarlingLAshrafianH, et al. Does off-pump coronary revascularization confer superior organ protection in re-operative coronary artery surgery? A meta-analysis of observational studies. J Cardiothorac Surg2014; 9: 115.
31.
LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJ, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ2009; 339: b2700.
32.
StroupDFBerlinJAMortonSC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA2000; 283: 2008–2012.
33.
HozoSPDjulbegovicBHozoI.Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol2005; 5: 13.
34.
HigginsJPThomasJChandlerJ, et al. Cochrane hndbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated August 2019). Cochrane, John Wiley & Sons, 2019. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
35.
HigginsJPThompsonSGDeeksJJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ2003; 327: 557–560.
36.
BrunoVDZakkarMRapettoF, et al. Early health outcome and 10-year survival in patients undergoing redo coronary surgery with or without cardiopulmonary bypass: a propensity score-matched analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2017; 52: 945–951.
37.
WuSWanFZhangZ, et al. Redo coronary artery bypass grafting: on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting revascularization techniques. Chin Med Sci J2015; 30: 28–33.
38.
DohiMMiyataHDoiK, et al. The off-pump technique in redo coronary artery bypass grafting reduces mortality and major morbidities: propensity score analysis of data from the Japan Cardiovascular Surgery Database. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2015; 47(2): 299–308.
39.
ShinYRLeeSJooHC, et al. Early and midterm outcome of redo coronary artery bypass grafting: on-pump versus off-pump bypass. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2014; 47(3): 225–232.
40.
RamlawiBBedeirKGarcia-MoralesL, et al. Improved short-term outcomes with off-pump reoperative coronary artery bypass grafting. Innovations (Phila)2014; 9(1): 49–53.
41.
UstaEElkrinawiRUrsulescuA, et al. Clinical outcome and quality of life after reoperative CABG: off-pump versus on-pump - observational pilot study. J Cardiothorac Surg2013; 8: 66.
42.
KaraICakalagaogluCAyY, et al. Reoperative coronary artery bypass surgery: the role of on-pump and off-pump techniques on factors affecting hospital mortality and morbidity. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2013; 19: 435–440.
43.
VohraHABahramiTFaridS, et al. Propensity score analysis of early and late outcome after redo off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2008; 33: 209–214.
44.
MorrisCDPuskasJDPuscaSV, et al. Outcomes after off-pump reoperative coronary artery bypass grafting. Innovations (Phila)2007; 2(1): 29–32.
45.
TugtekinSMAlexiouKKappertU, et al. Coronary reoperation with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. Clin Res Cardiol2006; 95(2): 93–98.
46.
GerliCMantovaniLFrancoA, et al. Redo coronary artery bypass grafting on the beating heart and transfusion needs. Minerva Anestesiol2006; 72(12): 985–993.
47.
ShapiraOMNatarajanVKaushikS, et al. Off-pump versus on-pump reoperative CABG via a left thoracotomy for circumflex coronary artery revascularization. J Card Surg2004; 19(2): 113–118.
48.
IscanHZKandemirOGolMK, et al. Coronary reoperations without the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. Cardiovasc Surg2003; 11(2): 155–158.
49.
CzernyMZimpferDKiloJ, et al. Coronary reoperations: recurrence of angina and clinical outcome with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg2003; 75(3): 847–852.
50.
DeweyTMMageeMJAcuffT, et al. Beating heart surgery reduces mortality in the reoperative bypass patient. Heart Surg Forum2002; 5(Suppl. 4): S301–S316.
51.
SchutzAMairHWildhirtSM, et al. Re-OPCAB vs. Re-CABG for myocardial revascularization. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2001; 49(3): 144–148.
52.
D’AnconaGKaramanoukianHRicciM, et al. Reoperative coronary artery bypass grafting with and without cardiopulmonary bypass: determinants of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Heart Surg Forum2001; 4(2): 152–159.
53.
TeodoriGIacoALDi MauroM, et al. Reoperative coronary surgery with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. J Card Surg2000; 15(4): 303–308.
54.
BergslandJHasnainSLajosTZ, et al. Elimination of cardiopulmonary bypass: a prime goal in reoperative coronary artery bypass surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg1998; 14: 59–62; discussion 62–63.
55.
AlamanniFPompilioGPolvaniG, et al. Off-pump redo coronary artery bypass grafting: technical aspects and early results. Heart Surg Forum2002; 5(Suppl. 4): S432–S444.
56.
SabikJFBlackstoneEHHoughtalingPL, et al. Is reoperation still a risk factor in coronary artery bypass surgery?Ann Thorac Surg2005; 80: 1719–1727.
57.
DiebergGSmartNAKingN.On-vs.off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol2016; 223: 201–211.
58.
JarralOASasoSAthanasiouT.Off-pump coronary artery bypass in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg2011; 92: 1686–1694.
59.
BenedettoULauCCaputoM, et al. Comparison of outcomes for off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in low-volume and high-volume centers and by low-volume and high-volume surgeons. Am J Cardiol2018; 121: 552–557.
60.
NathoeHMvan DijkDJansenEW, et al. A comparison of on-pump and off-pump coronary bypass surgery in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med2003; 348: 394–402.
61.
WidimskyPStrakaZStrosP, et al. One-year coronary bypass graft patency: a randomized comparison between off-pump and on-pump surgery angiographic results of the PRAGUE-4 trial. Circulation2004; 110: 3418–3423.
62.
Al-RuzzehSEpsteinDGeorgeS, et al. Economic evaluation of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery with and without cardiopulmonary bypass: cost-effectiveness and quality-adjusted life years in a randomized controlled trial. Artif Organs2008; 32: 891–897.
63.
AttiaTHalkosME.Commentary: reinventing the wheel: off- versus on-pump redo coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2019; 159: 457–458.
64.
WijeysunderaDNBeattieWSDjaianiG, et al. Off-pump coronary artery surgery for reducing mortality and morbidity: meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. J Am Coll Cardiol2005; 46(5): 872–882.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
