-
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. · Feb 2017
Meta AnalysisCoronary Artery Bypass Grafting With and Without Manipulation of the Ascending Aorta: A Network Meta-Analysis.
- Dong Fang Zhao, J James Edelman, Michael Seco, Paul G Bannon, Michael K Wilson, Michael J Byrom, Vinod Thourani, Andre Lamy, David P Taggart, John D Puskas, and Michael P Vallely.
- Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Baird Institute of Applied Heart and Lung Surgical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
- J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017 Feb 28; 69 (8): 924-936.
BackgroundCoronary 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.ObjectivesA 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThere 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).ConclusionsAvoidance 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.Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.