Statistics from Altmetric.com
Objective To evaluate off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with three-vessel disease and a high-risk operative profile.
Design A randomised clinical trial.
Setting Rigshospitalet, University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Participants 341 patients with three-vessel disease and a EuroSCORE of 5 or greater. Main exclusion criteria were previous heart surgery, poor left ventricular function (ejection fraction <30%), or unstable preoperative condition.
Intervention CABG performed with versus without cardiopulmonary bypass.
Main outcome measure The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) including all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest with successful resuscitation, low cardiac output syndrome/cardiogenic shock, stroke and coronary reintervention.
Results MACCE occurred in 69 (40%) patients allocated to off-pump versus 54 (33%) patients allocated to on-pump CABG during the median 3.7 years of follow-up (HR 1.22; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.75; p=0.26). All-cause mortality was significantly increased in the off-pump group (24% vs 15%; HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.73; p=0.04), but cardiac-related death was not significantly different (10% vs 7%; HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.66; p=0.47). An insignificant trend towards a reduction in myocardial infarction after off-pump CABG was observed (7% vs 14%; HR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.04; p=0.06).
Conclusions No significant difference in the primary outcome of MACCE was found between off-pump and on-pump CABG. However, mortality seemed higher after off-pump CABG.
Funding The work was performed at the Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Denmark. The Danish Heart Foundation (08-4-R64-A2029-B948-22480), the Danish Medical Research Council, the Copenhagen Hospital Corporations Medical Research Council, the Rigshospitalet Research Council, Aase and Ejnar Danielsens Foundation, the Gangsted Foundation and Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation provided funding for the study.
Competing interests None.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Danish Regional Committee on Biomedical Ethics and the Danish Data Protection Agency.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.