| Summary: | <h4>Objective</h4>Conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or on-pump arrested heart CABG (ONCAB) is a standard and simple technique. However, adverse effects can occur due to the use of aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass. Performing off-pump CABG (OPCAB) aims to avoid these adverse effects but may result in incomplete revascularization. On-pump beating heart CABG (ONBHCAB) combines the benefits of both ONCAB and OPCAB. This study focuses on comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of different CABG techniques.<h4>Method</h4>Retrospective observational cohort included 2,028 patients who underwent ONCAB, OPCAB, and ONBHCAB. The short-term outcomes including postoperative ischemic injury, hemodynamic functions, and adverse events were compared. The long-term outcomes were overall survival and the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Propensity score matching ensured comparability among the three patient groups.<h4>Results</h4>After matching, there were no differences in baseline characteristics. Regarding ischemic injury, OPCAB showed the lowest peak cardiac enzyme levels (all p≤0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the change of hemodynamic function (cardiac index) between the three groups (p = 0.158). Ten-year survival for OPCAB, ONBHCAB, and ONCAB were 80.5%, 75.9%, and 73.7%, respectively. OPCAB was associated with a significant reduction in mortality risk and MACE when compared to others (Mortality HR = 0.33, p = 0.001, MACE HR = 0.52, p = 0.004).<h4>Conclusion</h4>OPCAB implementation resulted in a lower occurrence of postoperative ischemic injury than ONCAB and ONBHCAB. No differences in postoperative hemodynamic function in all three techniques were observed. OPCAB respectively were preferable techniques beneficial for long-term outcomes.
|
|---|