Key result
Aortic manipulation during off-pump CABG is linked to ~42% fewer strokes versus non-aortic manipulation.
Why the study?
Neurologic complications after CABG remain devastating, and off-pump techniques were intended to reduce this risk. The study assessed the rate of neurologic complications following aortic manipulation after off-pump CABG.
Does aortic manipulation reduce stroke in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting?
Meta-Analysis (n=823,972)
Does aortic manipulation reduce stroke in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting?
Effect estimate: OR 0.58 (95% CI 0.44-0.77)
p-value: p=<0.001
In patients undergoing off-pump CABG, aortic manipulation was associated with a significantly lower rate of stroke compared to non-aortic manipulation, with no significant differences in other major complications.
May favor aortic manipulation to reduce stroke in off-pump CABG; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Background: Neurologic complications after coronary artery bypass grafting continue to be among the most devastating complications. The goal of coronary artery bypass grafting, which is performed utilizing off-pump techniques on a beating heart, was to reduce this risk. The purpose of the study was to assess the neurologic complications rate following aortic manipulation after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Methods: Dichotomous random or fixed effect models generated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on the study of the meta-analysis data. 28 papers, with a total of 823,972 patients, were available between 2002 and 2021 and were comprised in this meta-analysis. Results: Aortic manipulation was much less likely to cause a stroke in people with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44–0.77; p < 0.001) than non-aortic manipulation. However, no significant difference was found between aortic manipulation and non-aortic manipulation in all-cause mortality (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.69–1.02, p = 0.08), acute renal failure (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.69–1.08, p = 0.20), atrial fibrillation (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.21–2.15, p = 0.50), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56–1.01, p = 0.06), respiratory complications (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40–1.03, p = 0.07), reoperation for bleeding (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.57–1.38, p = 0.59), and mediastinitis (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46–1.28, p = 0.31) in subjects with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Conclusions: The present evaluation showed that using aortic manipulation resulted in a significantly lower rate of stroke occurence; however, no significant difference was found in all-cause mortality, acute renal failure, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, respiratory complications, reoperation for bleeding, and mediastinitis compared to non-aortic manipulation in subjects with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. However, given that some comparisons comprised a small number of studies, attention ought to be given to their values.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (n=823,972). Aortic manipulation vs. Non-aortic manipulation was evaluated on Stroke (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.77, p=<0.001). Aortic manipulation during off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a significantly lower rate of stroke compared to non-aortic manipulation (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.44-0.77; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: