• J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. · Feb 2017

    Meta Analysis

    Coronary 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.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    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..

    hide…