Total amount: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,632
Ngaage D. L., Rogers S., Tang A., Sogliani F.
Lancashire Cardiac Centre, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Whinney Heys Road, Blackpool, UK
AIM: The aim of this paper was to compare the clinical impact of the different myocardial protection strategies in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients to facilitate decision-making for use of on- or off-pump technique.
METHODS: Prospectively collected data for primary CABG patients between April 1, 1996 and December 30, 2010 (N.=8779) were analyzed. Early adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (ACCE) and late survival were compared between on-pump; cardioplegia (CPA, N.=3862, 44%), cross-clamp fibrillation (XCF, N.=3751, 43%), and off-pump (N.=1166, 13%) myocardial protection. Second, clinical profiling for the risk of ACCE with each strategy was performed using principal component analysis. Finally, a 1:1 matched cohort comparison of 1055 patients was done.
RESULTS: There were vast differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Significantly fewer grafts per patient were constructed using off-pump. There were no remarkable differences in operative mortality and 10-year survival rates between the groups after restrictive matching. Principal component analysis identified high risk profiles; factor 1 (ejection fraction 30-50%, prior myocardial infarction, non-elective operation), and factors 4 (hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, Body Mass Index >30 kg/m2) and 5 (female, octogenarian, left main stem disease) to be strongly associated with ACCE after on-pump CABG while lower risk profiles; factors 5 and 6 (extracardiac arteriopathy, prior stroke) were associated with ACCE after off-pump CABG.
CONCLUSION: Comparatively, on-pump techniques were associated with greater risk of adverse events in “high risk” patients defined by clinical characteristics, while off-pump was associated with increased risk of adverse events in “low risk” patients.