Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2006 Mar;88(2):99-102.
doi: 10.1308/003588406X95165.

Coronary artery bypass

Affiliations
Review

Coronary artery bypass

Ian Weir. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2006 Mar.

Abstract

Coronary artery bypass grafting as a means of myocardial revascularisation is a remarkably successful operation. Over 25,000 procedures are carried out each year in the UK with an operative mortality of the order of 2% achieved despite an ageing surgical population. Over the last decade, a remarkable increase in the number of patients treated percutaneously by angioplasty and stenting has lead to a levelling off, or even a decline, in the number of patients treated surgically. In an attempt to reduce further the operative morbidity and mortality by excluding that attributable to the extracorporeal circulation, several surgical groups have pioneered performing the procedure without the heart-lung machine (off-pump or OPCAB). Although not a new concept there has been a dramatic increase in its use, lead by the development of sophisticated and disposable devices for stabilising the heart to enable the demanding anastomotic technique required to suture vessels of 1-2 mm often containing degenerative plaque. Concerns remain about the completeness of revascularisation and about the quality of the anastomoses obtained, particularly in the right and circumflex territories which are less accessible than the anterior descending artery. Although some reduction in morbidity has been demonstrated, this has not been as marked as had been hoped. Davies and Wallwork from Papworth argue persuasively and colourfully in favour of the conventional operation and point out the difficulties in designing an appropriate, prospective, randomised,controlled clinical trial because of the apparently small differences in outcome between the two techniques. Amrani and colleagues from Harefield, leading proponents of off-pump surgery using it in virtually 100% of patients undergoing revascularisation, extensively review the comparative literature to date.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Hernandez F, Cohen WE, Baribeau YR, et al. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. In-hospital outcomes of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass procedures: a multicenter experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:1528–33. - PubMed
    1. Angelini GD, Taylor FC, Reeves BC, Ascione R. Early and midterm outcome after off-pump and on-pump surgery in Beating Heart against Cardioplegic Arrest Studies (BHACAS 1 and 2): a pooled analysis of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2002;359:1194–9. - PubMed
    1. Puskas JD, Williams WH, Duke PG, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting provides complete revascularisation with reduced myocardial injury, transfusion requirements, and length of stay; a prospective randomised comparison of two hundred unselected patients undergoing off-pump versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;125:797–808. - PubMed
    1. Selke FW, DiMaio JM, Caplan LR, Ferguson TB, et al. Comparing on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Numerous studies but few conclusions. Circulation. 2005;111:2858–64. - PubMed
    1. Racz MJ, Hannan EL, Isom OW, et al. A comparison of the short- and long-term outcomes after off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery with sternotomy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:557–64. - PubMed