The Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Off-Pump versus On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in High Risk Patients.
- Author:
Young Nam YOUN
1
;
Kyung Jong YOO
;
Kyo Joon LEE
;
Chi Young KIM
;
Ji Young AHN
;
Young Jun OH
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, YongDong Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Korea. kjy@yumc.yonsei.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Coronary artery bypass surgery;
Risk analysis
- MeSH:
Cardiopulmonary Bypass;
Coronary Artery Bypass*;
Coronary Artery Bypass, Off-Pump;
Coronary Disease;
Coronary Vessels*;
Humans;
Length of Stay;
Mortality;
Myocardial Infarction;
Renal Insufficiency;
Risk Factors;
Stroke;
Transplants;
Ventilation
- From:The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2004;37(9):749-754
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
Background: Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (Off-Pump CABG) has been proven to have less morbidity and to facilitate early recovery. High-risk surgical patients may have benefitted by avoiding the adverse effects of the cardiopulmonary bypass. We compared the effectiveness of Off-Pump CABG with that of coronary artery bypass using cardiopulmonary bypass (On-Pump CABG) in high-risk patients. Material and Method: 682 patients (424 Off-Pump CABG and 258 On-Pump CABG) underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting between January 200l and June 2003. Patients who were considered high risk were selected High risk is defined as the presence of one or more of nine adverse prognostic factors. Data were collected from 192 patients in Off-Pump CABG and 100 in On-Pump CABG for risk factors, extent of coronary disease, and in-hospital outcomes. Result: Off-Pump CABG group and On-Pump CABG group did not show differences in their preoperative risk factors. We used more arterial grafts in Off-Pump CABG group (p<0.05). Postoperative results showed that operative mortality (0.5% in Off-Pump CABG versus 2.0% in On-Pump CABG), renal failure (2.6% in Off-Pump CABG versus 7.0% in On-Pump CABG), and perioperative myocardial infarction (l.5% in Off-Pump CABG versus l.0% in On-Pump CABG) did not differ significantly. However, Off-Pump CABG had shorter mean operation time (p<0.05), lower mean CK-MB level (p<0.05), lower rate of usage of inotropics (p<0.05), shorter mean ventilation time (p<0.05), lower perioperative stroke (0% versus 2.0%), and shorter length of stay (p<0.05) than On-Pump CABG. On-Pump CABG had more distal grafts (p<0.05) than Off-Pump CABG. Although Off-Pump CABG and On-Pump CABG did not show statistical differences in mortality and morbidity was more frequent in CABG. Conclusion: Off-Pump CABG reduces morbidity and favors hospital outcomes. Therefore, Off-Pump CABG is safe, reasonable and may be a preferable operative strategy for high-risk patients.
