Off-pump coronary revascularization offers a safe and cost-effective alternative to conventional coronary revascularization with cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest.
Does off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting offer a safe and cost-effective alternative to conventional CABG?
Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting is considered a safe and cost-effective alternative to conventional on-pump CABG based on a review of the literature.
Avoiding the morbidity of cardiopulmonary bypass should theoretically reduce the incidence of organ dysfunction and lead to improved patient outcomes. Recently, cardiac mechanical stabilization techniques were developed, facilitating on-pump CABG (OPCAB). The use of CPB may influence the economic outcome, while maintaining quality of care and patient satisfaction. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Science Citation Index (SCI), Current Contents, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NEED), and International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) databases were searched from the date of their inception to the end of March 2008, using the search terms off-pump, minimally invasive, beating heart, coronary artery bypass, and their variants. Off-pump revascularization offers a safe, cost-effective alternative to conventional coronary revascularization with cardiopulmonary bypass (CABG) and cardioplegic arrest.
Emad M. Hijazi (Wed,) conducted a review in Coronary artery disease requiring revascularization. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (beating-heart CABG) vs. Conventional coronary revascularization with cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest was evaluated. Off-pump coronary revascularization offers a safe and cost-effective alternative to conventional coronary revascularization with cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: