On-pump Arrest Versus On-pump Beating Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Faculty of medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

2 Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Background: Studies that have specifically compared arrest and beating methods in on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are limited.
 
Objectives: In light of the aforementioned issues, the present study aimed to compare the results of two techniques of on-pump arrest CABG and on-pump beating CABG with the same surgical and anesthesiology team and the same protocol in a single center.
 
Methods: In this retrospective cohort study that was conducted in Ghaem Hospital of Mashhad between November 2020 and 2022, the needed data were extracted from the medical records of all patients that underwent on-pump beating CABG or on-pump arrest CABG. According to the method of operation, other variables, including post-operation bleeding, atrial and ventricular arrhythmia, returning the patient to the operating room for bleeding, need for inotrope, need for a balloon pump, hospital mortality, superficial and deep sternal infection and dehiscence, kidney injury, delayed extubation, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and neurological complications were compared in the two groups.
 
Results: A total of 105 patients with a mean age of 61.07±10.55 years were included in the study. Of these, 65 (61.9%) cases were male and the rest were female. Of the total patients included in the study, 60 subjects were in the beating group, and 45 cases were allocated to the arrest group. The postoperative outcomes were compared, and there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of patients' outcomes (P>0.05). Furthermore, the comparison of in-hospital and one-month mortality of patients in two groups demonstrated no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05).
 
Conclusion: As evidenced by the obtained results, postoperative complications, as well as in-hospital and one-month mortality, are not significantly different between on-pump arrest CABG and on-pump beating CABG.
 

Keywords

References

1. Mirmohammadsadeghi A, Jahannama N, Mirmohammadsadeghi M. Sleep quality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Comparing pulsatile and nonpulsatile pump flow. The Journal of Extra-corporeal Technology. 2020;52(4):314.
https://doi.org/10.1051/ject/202052314
PMid:33343034 PMCid:PMC7728499
 
2. Lamy A, Devereaux PJ, Prabhakaran D, Taggart DP, Hu S, Paolasso E, et al.CORONARY Investigators Off-pump or on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting at 30 days. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(16):1489-1497
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1200388
PMid:22449296
 
3. Ferrari E, Stalder N, von Segesser LK. On-pump beating heart coronary surgery for high risk patients requiring emergency multiple coronary artery bypass grafting. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;3:38-38.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-8090-3-38
PMid:18597673 PMCid:PMC2474599
 
4. Miyahara K, Matsuura A, Takemura H, Saito S, Sawaki S, Yoshioka T, et al. On-pump beating-heart coronary artery bypass grafting after acute myocardial infarction has lower mortality and morbidity. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135(3):521-526.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.10.006
PMid:18329463
 
5. Pegg TJ, Selvanayagam JB, Francis JM, Karamitsos TD, Maunsell Z, Yu LM, et al. A randomized trial of on-pump beating heart and conventional cardioplegic arrest in coronary artery bypass surgery patients with impaired left ventricular function using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and biochemical markers. Circulation. 2008;118(21):2130-2138.
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.785105
PMid:18981306
 
6. Williams JB, Hernandez AF, Li S, Dokholyan RS, O'Brien SM, Smith PK, et al. Postoperative inotrope and vasopressor use following CABG: outcome data from the CAPS-care study. J Card Surg. 2011;26(6):572-578.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8191.2011.01301.x
PMid:21951076 PMCid:PMC3677728
 
7. Lazar HL, Fitzgerald CA, Ahmad T, Bao Y, Colton T, Shapira OM, et al. Early discharge after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: are patients really going home earlier? The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2001;121(5):943-5
https://doi.org/10.1067/mtc.2001.113751
PMid:11326238
 
8. Thielmann M, Sharma V, Al-Attar N, Bulluck H, Bisleri G, Bunge JJH, et al. ESC Joint Working Groups on Cardiovascular Surgery and the Cellular Biology of the Heart Position Paper: Perioperative myocardial injury and infarction in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(31):2392-2407
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx383
PMid:28821170 PMCid:PMC5808635
 
9. Gundry SR, Romano MA, Shattuck OH, Razzouk AJ, Bailey LL. Seven-year follow-up of coronary artery bypasses performed with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;115(6):1273-1277
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(98)70209-0
PMid:9628668
 
10. Abu-Omar Y, Taghavi FJ, Navaratnarajah M, et al. The impact of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery on postoperative renal function. Perfusion. 2012;27(2):127-131. doi: 10.1177/0267659111429890
https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659111429890
PMid:22115880
 
11. Hattler B, Messenger JC, Shroyer AL, et al.; Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) Study Group. Off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery is associated with worse arterial and saphenous vein graft patency and less effective revascularization: results from the
 
Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial. Circulation. 2012;125(23):2827-2835. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.069260
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.069260
PMid:22592900
 
12. Thakur U, Nerlekar N, Muthalaly RG, et al.Off- vs. on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting long-term survival is driven by incompleteness of revascularisation. Heart Lung Circ. 2020;29(1):149-155. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2018.11.019
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2018.11.019
PMid:30686645
 
13. . Shroyer AL, Grover FL, Hattler B, et al.; Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) Study Group. On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(19):1827-1837. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0902905
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0902905
PMid:19890125
 
14. Shroyer AL, Hattler B, Wagner TH, et al.; Veterans Affairs ROOBY-FS Group. Five-year outcomes after on-pump and off-pump coronary-artery bypass. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):623-632. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1614341
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1614341
PMid:28813218
 
15. Smart NA, Dieberg G, King N. Long-term outcomes of on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(9):983-991. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.049
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.049
PMid:29495998
 
16. Cowper DC, Kubal JD, Maynard C, Hynes DM. A primer and comparative review of major US mortality databases. Ann Epidemiol. 2002;12(7):462-468. doi: 10.1016/S1047-2797(01)00285-X
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-2797(01)00285-X
PMid:12377423
 
17. Quin JA, Hattler B, Shroyer ALW, et al.; Department of Veteran Affairs (CSP#517-FS) ROOBY Follow-up Study's Endpoints Committee. Concordance between administrative data and clinical review for mortality in the randomized on/off bypass follow-up study (ROOBY-FS). J Card Surg. 2017;32(12):751-756. doi: 10.1111/jocs.13379
https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.13379
PMid:29239024
 
18. Barnett PG. An improved set of standards for finding cost for cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 2009;47(7) (suppl 1):S82-S88. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819e1f3f
https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e31819e1f3f
PMid:19536018
 
19. Novitzky D, Baltz JH, Hattler B, et al. Outcomes after conversion in the Veterans Affairs Randomized On versus Off Bypass trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92(6):2147-2154. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.05.122
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.05.122
PMid:21978872
 
20. Novitzky D, Baltz JH, Hattler B, et al. Outcomes after conversion in the Veterans Affairs Randomized On versus Off Bypass trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92(6):2147-2154. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.05.122
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.05.122
PMid:21978872
 
21. Taggart DP, Gaudino MF, Gerry S, et al.; Arterial Revascularization Trial Investigators. Ten-year outcomes after off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: insights from the Arterial Revascularization Trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;162(2):591-599.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.02.035
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.02.035
PMid:32173100
 
22. Deutsch MA, Zittermann A, Renner A, et al.. Risk-adjusted analysis of long-term outcomes after on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2021;33(6):857-865. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivab179
https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivab179
PMid:34333605 PMCid:PMC8632741
 
23. Kim JB, Yun SC, Lim JW, et al. Long-term survival following coronary artery bypass grafting: off-pump versus on-pump strategies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(21):2280-2288. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.584
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.584
PMid:24703910
 
24. Salehi M, Bakhshandeh A, Rahmanian M, Saberi K, Kahrom M, Sobhanian K. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients with Advanced Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Excellent Early Outcome with Improved Ejection Fraction. J The Univ Heart Ctr 2016;11(1):6-10.
 
25. Chikwe J, Lee T, Itagaki S, Adams DH, Egorova NN. Long-term outcomes after off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting by experienced surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72(13):1478-1486. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.07.029
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.07.029
PMid:30236310
Razavi International Journal of Medicine
Volume 12, Issue 1
March 2024
Pages 29-32

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics