Off-pump versus on-pump coronary surgery in patients with chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis
- 319 Downloads
Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have worse adverse cardiovascular outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, the adverse cardiovascular outcomes between off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (ONCAB) in these patients have been a subject of debate.
We undertook a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database to identify all relevant studies comparing techniques between OPCAB and ONCAB in CKD patients. We pooled the odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) from individual studies and conducted heterogeneity, quality assessment, and publication bias analyses.
This meta-analysis includes 17 studies with 201,889 patients. In CKD patients, OPCAB was associated with significantly lower early mortality as compared to ONCAB (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.82–0.93; p < 0.0001). OPCAB was associated with decreased risk of atrial fibrillation (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.34–0.97; p = 0.04), cerebrovascular accident (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22–0.95; p = 0.04), blood transfusion (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.08–0.49; p = 0.0005), pneumonia, prolonged ventilation, and shorter hospital stays. No difference was found regarding long-term survival (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.86–1.36; p = 0.51) or myocardial infarction (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.30–1.38; p = 0.26).
Compared with ONCAB, OPCAB is associated with superior postoperative morbidity and the early mortality in CKD patients. Long-term survival is comparable between the two surgical revascularizations.
KeywordsOff-pump coronary artery bypass grafting On-pump coronary artery bypass grafting Chronic kidney disease Coronary heart disease
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.
Human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.National Institutes of Health. USRDS 2000 Annual Data Report. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; 2000. Publication No. (NIH) 00-3176: 589-684 and 69-75Google Scholar
- 16.Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa: Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa; 2011. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm. Accessed 23 Apr 2016.
- 38.Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2541–619.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011;124:2610–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar