Off-Pump or On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting at 30 Days

André Lamy(McMaster University), P.J. Devereaux(Hamilton Health Sciences), Dorairaj Prabhakaran(Population Health Research Institute), David P. Taggart(Population Health Research Institute), Shengshou Hu(Population Health Research Institute), Ernesto Paolasso(Population Health Research Institute), Zbyněk Straka(Charles University), Leopoldo Soares Piegas(Population Health Research Institute), Ahmet Rüçhan Akar(Population Health Research Institute), Anil Jain(Population Health Research Institute), Nicolas Noiseux(Population Health Research Institute), Chandrasekar Padmanabhan(Population Health Research Institute), Juan-Carlos Bahamondes(Population Health Research Institute), Richard J. Novick(Population Health Research Institute), Prashant Vaijyanath(Frontier Lifeline Hospital), Sukesh Reddy(MaxCure Hospitals), Liang Tao(Wuhan Asia Heart Hospital), Pablo A. Olavegogeascoechea(Population Health Research Institute), Balram Airan(All India Institute of Medical Sciences), Toomas-Andres Sulling(Population Health Research Institute), Richard Whitlock(Hamilton Health Sciences), Yongning Ou(Population Health Research Institute), Jennifer Ng(McMaster University), Susan Chrolavicius(McMaster University), Salim Yusuf(Population Health Research Institute)
New England Journal of Medicine
March 26, 2012
Cited by 696Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The relative benefits and risks of performing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) with a beating-heart technique (off-pump CABG), as compared with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump CABG), are not clearly established. METHODS: At 79 centers in 19 countries, we randomly assigned 4752 patients in whom CABG was planned to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. The first coprimary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or new renal failure requiring dialysis at 30 days after randomization. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcome between off-pump and on-pump CABG (9.8% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio for the off-pump group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.14; P=0.59) or in any of its individual components. The use of off-pump CABG, as compared with on-pump CABG, significantly reduced the rates of blood-product transfusion (50.7% vs. 63.3%; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85; P<0.001), reoperation for perioperative bleeding (1.4% vs. 2.4%; relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.93; P=0.02), acute kidney injury (28.0% vs. 32.1%; relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.96; P=0.01), and respiratory complications (5.9% vs. 7.5%; relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P=0.03) but increased the rate of early repeat revascularizations (0.7% vs. 0.2%; hazard ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.34 to 12.0; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the 30-day rate of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or renal failure requiring dialysis. The use of off-pump CABG resulted in reduced rates of transfusion, reoperation for perioperative bleeding, respiratory complications, and acute kidney injury but also resulted in an increased risk of early revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294.).


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis