• Piroze M Davierwala.
• Department of Cardiac Surgery, Heart Center, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
• J Thorac Dis. 2016 Nov 1; 8 (Suppl 10): S772-S786.

AbstractCoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) can be performed conventionally using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic clamping or on a beating heart (BH) without the use of CPB, the so-called off-pump CABG. Some surgeons, who are proponents of off-pump CABG, preferentially use this technique for the majority of operations, whereas others use it only in certain situations which warrant avoidance of CPB. Ever since the conception of off-pump CABG, the never-ending debate about which technique of CABG is safe and efficacious continues to date. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted that have either favored on-pump CABG or have failed to show a significant difference in outcomes between the two techniques. However, these RCTs have been fraught with claims that they do not represent the majority of patients undergoing CABG in real world practice. Therefore, assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of each technique through observational and registry studies would be more representative of patients encountered in daily practice. The present review examines various retrospective studies and meta-analyses of observational studies that compare the early and long-term outcomes of off- and on-pump CABG, which assesses their safety and efficacy. Additionally, their outcomes in older patients, females, and those with diabetes mellitus, renal dysfunction, presence of ascending aortic disease, and/or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have also been discussed separately. The general consensus is that early results of off-pump CABG are comparable to or in some cases better than on-pump CABG. However, on-pump CABG provides a survival benefit in the long term according to a majority of publications in literature.

1 keywords...

hide…