Why the study?
Does anaortic off-pump CABG reduce 30-day post-operative stroke compared to other CABG techniques in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting?
Meta-Analysis (n=37,720)
Does anaortic off-pump CABG reduce 30-day post-operative stroke compared to other CABG techniques in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting?
Anaortic off-pump CABG significantly reduces the risk of 30-day post-operative stroke and other short-term complications compared to traditional on-pump and other off-pump CABG techniques.
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of treatment for 3-vessel and left main coronary disease, but is associated with an increased risk of post-operative stroke compared to percutaneous coronary intervention. It has been suggested that CABG techniques that eliminate cardiopulmonary bypass and reduce aortic manipulation may reduce the incidence of post-operative stroke. OBJECTIVES: A network meta-analysis was performed to compare post-operative outcomes between all CABG techniques, including anaortic off-pump CABG (anOPCABG), off-pump with the clampless Heartstring device (OPCABG-HS), off-pump with a partial clamp (OPCABG-PC), and traditional on-pump CABG with aortic cross-clamping. METHODS: A systematic search of 6 electronic databases was performed to identify all publications reporting the outcomes of the included operations. Studies reporting the primary endpoint, 30-day post-operative stroke rate, were included in a Bayesian network meta-analysis. RESULTS: There were 13 included studies with 37,720 patients. At baseline, anOPCABG patients had higher previous stroke than did the OPCABG-PC (7.4% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.02) and CABG (7.4% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.001) patients. AnOPCABG was the most effective treatment for decreasing the risk of post-operative stroke (-78% vs. CABG, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14 to 0.33; -66% vs. OPCABG-PC, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.52; -52% vs. OPCABG-HS, 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.86), mortality (-50% vs. CABG, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.70; -40% vs. OPCABG-HS, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.94), renal failure (-53% vs. CABG, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.68), bleeding complications (-48% vs. OPCABG-HS, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.87; -36% vs. CABG, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.95), atrial fibrillation (-34% vs. OPCABG-HS, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.89; -29% vs. CABG, 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.87; -20% vs. OPCABG-PC, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.97), and shortening the length of intensive care unit stay (-13.3 h; 95% CI: -19.32 to -7.26; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Avoidance of aortic manipulation in anOPCABG may decrease the risk of post-operative stroke, especially in patients with higher stroke risk. In addition, the elimination of cardiopulmonary bypass may reduce the risk of short-term mortality, renal failure, atrial fibrillation, bleeding, and length of intensive care unit stay.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2017) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary artery disease (n=37,720). Anaortic off-pump CABG (anOPCABG) vs. Traditional on-pump CABG was evaluated on 30-day post-operative stroke rate (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.33).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: