In the present systematic review with meta-analysis, we sought to determine the current strength of evidence for or against off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with regard to hard clinical end-points, graft patency and cost-effectiveness. We performed a meta-analysis of only randomized controlled trials (RCT) which reported at least one of the desired end-points including: (i) major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), (ii) all-cause mortality, (iii) myocardial infarction, (iv) cerebrovascular accident, (v) repeat revascularization, (vi) graft patency and (vii) cost-effectiveness. The pooled treatment effects [odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference, 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs)] were assessed using a fixed or random effects model. A total of 16 904 patients from 51 studies were identified after literature search of the major databases using a predefined keyword list. The incidence of MACCE did not differ between the groups, neither during the first 30 days (OR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.82-1.04) nor for the longest available follow-up (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.92-1.12). While the incidence of mid-term graft failure (OR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.09-1.72) and the need for repeat revascularization (OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.33-1.80) was increased after off-pump surgery, on-pump surgery was associated with an increased occurrence of stroke (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.58-0.95), renal impairment (OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71-0.89) and mediastinitis (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.31-0.62). There was no difference with regard to hard clinical end-points between on- or off-pump surgery, including myocardial infarction or mortality. The present systematic review emphasizes that both off- and on-pump surgery provide excellent and comparable results in patients requiring surgical revascularization. The choice for either strategy should take into account the individual patient profile (comorbidities, life expectancy, etc.) and importantly, the surgeon's experience in performing on- or off-pump CABG in their routine practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.