Background-Women experience greater morbidity and mortality than men after conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The objective of this study was to determine whether off-pump CABG (OPCAB) alters this gender-based disparity.
Objective Application of off-pump techniques to reoperative coronary artery bypass (redo CABG) has been limited by technical difficulty and potential for embolism of atheromatous debris from diseased grafts, resulting in myocardial infarction and rapid hemodynamic deterioration. We compared outcomes after off-pump (OPCAB) and on-pump (ONCAB) in redo CABG. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed for patients who underwent redo CABG at a single academic institution between January 1997 and December 2004. Outcomes were compared between groups based on intention to treat. Propensity scores were calculated for each patient using 23 preoperative risk factors. Logistic regression was applied for each end point as a function of group and propensity score. Results A total of 771 consecutive patients had redo CABG (639 ONCAB and 132 OPCAB); 22 patients (16.7%) were converted from OPCAB to ONCAB for hemodynamic in stability, severe adhesions, or graft injury; 7 patients (1.1%) were converted from ONCAB to OPCAB for severe aortic calcification. Propensity-matched comparison of outcomes after OPCAB versus ONCAB for redo CABG showed that OPCAB was associated with a reduction in postoperative complications, transfusion, atrial fibrillation, and length of stay. OPCAB patients received fewer grafts with similar use of left internal mammary artery conduit; conversion from OPCAB to ONCAB did not reduce the benefit of OPCAB. Conclusions OPCAB can be safely and effectively applied to reoperative CABG in selected cases.
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.