Comparison of off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in midterm results

Abstract

Objective: Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) has become a procedure of choice for surgical treatment of coronary artery disease. Although early advantages of OPCAB were confirmed in comparison with conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), late cardiac complications are still controversial. We examined midterm results of OPCAB compared with standard CABG.

Methods: Between July 1997 and April 2002, 736 consecutive patients who underwent isolated CABG were retrospectively reviewed. The OPCAB group (Group I) comprised 357 patients (49%), and the on-pump CABG group (Group II) 379 patients (51%). Their preoperative, intraoperative, and follow-up data were analyzed.

Results: The mean number of distal anastomoses and the early graft patency were not greatly different between the two groups. The actuarial survival rate at 3 years was not significantly different between Group I (98.3%) and Group II (98.2%) (p = 0.71). The frequency of cardiac events was 4.2%/patient-year in Group I and 2.6%/patient-year in Group II (p = 0.12). The actuarial event free rates were not different between the two groups (p = 0.61). The cardiac event free rates at 3 years were significantly (p = 0.011) higher in patients with complete revascularization (96.7%) than without complete revascularization in Group I (69.2%) and in Group II (92.7% versus 85.9%, p = 0.026).

Conclusions: Midterm clinical outcome in OPCAB is as good as conventional on-pump CABG. Incomplete revascularization caused cardiac events more frequently than complete revascularization both in OPCAB and on-pump CABG in the intermediate follow-up.