We aimed to compare the early, mid-term, and long-term mortality between on-pump vs. off-pump redo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We conducted a systematic search for studies comparing clinical outcomes of patients who underwent on-pump vs. off-pump redo CABG. We pooled the relevant studies quantitatively to compare the early (perioperative period, whether in hospital or within 30 days after discharge), mid-term (≥1 year and <5 years), and long-term (≥5 year) mortality of on-pump vs. off-pump redo CABG. A random-effect model was applied when there was high heterogeneity (I2 > 50%) between studies. Otherwise, a fixed-effect model was utilized. After systematic literature searching, 22 studies incorporating 5,197 individuals (3,215 in the on-pump group and 1,982 in the off-pump group) were identified. A pooled analysis demonstrated that compared with off-pump redo CABG, on-pump redo CABG was associated with higher early mortality (OR 2.11, 95%CI: 1.54–2.89, P < 0.00001). However, no significant difference was noted in mid-term mortality (OR 1.12, 95%CI: 0.57–2.22, P = 0.74) and long-term mortality (OR 1.12, 95%CI: 0.41–3.02, P = 0.83) between the two groups. In addition, the complete revascularization rate was higher in the on-pump group than the off-pump group (OR 2.61, 95%CI: 1.22–5.60, P = 0.01). In conclusion, the off-pump technique is a safe and efficient alternative to the on-pump technique, with early survival advantage and similar long-term mortality to the on-pump technique in the setting of redo CABG, especially in high-risk patients.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42021244721.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the mid-term outcome of coronary endarterectomy (CE) combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and explore the potential risk factors for adverse events. METHODS A total of 208 consecutive patients underwent CE between 2008 and 2018 in our centre, of which 198 were included in this retrospective cohort study. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed to evaluate event-free survival, whereas subgroup analysis and Cox regression were used to explore risk factors for the outcomes. RESULTS The median follow-up time was 34.7 months. CE + CABG was performed mainly on the left anterior descending artery (42.3%) or right coronary artery (42.3%). Both operative mortality and incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction were 1.5%. The overall survival at 3 and 5 years was 98.0% and 95.9%, whereas the MACCE-free survival was 93.7% and 89.4%, respectively. No significant difference in the incidence of MACCE was observed between on-pump and off-pump CE (P = 0.256) or between left anterior descending artery and non-left anterior descending artery endarterectomy (P = 0.540). Advanced age (>65 years) was associated with a higher risk of MACCE both in univariate [hazard ratio (HR) 3.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37–9.62; P = 0.010] and multivariate analysis (HR 3.59, 95% CI 1.32–9.77; P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS When performed by experienced surgeons, CE + CABG could be an acceptable approach to achieve complete revascularization of diffusely diseased coronary arteries with satisfactory outcomes, although advanced age might increase the risk of MACCE.

Background: Coronary endarterectomy (CE) combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) can be the only option for complete revascularization in some patients with diffuse coronary artery disease. Unfortunately, CE can cause the lack of endothelium, resulting in increased risk of thrombotic events. Therefore, antithrombotic therapy is very important after surgery. However, there's no consistent protocol exists till now. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of dual antiplatelet therapies (DAPT) including aspirin plus clopidogrel (AC) or ticagrelor (AT) after CE + CABG. Method: A total of 137 continuous patients (mean age 60.0 ± 9.0 years) underwent CE + CABG from January 2016 to July 2018 in our center, and patients who received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after surgery (n = 121) were included in this study. All of the patients received aspirin 100 mg daily therapy after surgery, and 67 of the patients received extra clopidogrel 75 mg (AC) daily therapy, whereas 54 received extra ticagrelor 90 mg (AT) twice daily. All patients continued aspirin monotherapy after 1 year. Occurrence of ischemic events and bleeding events between two groups were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival was used to compare freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) between two groups, and log-rank test was used to confirm statistical difference. Results: Follow-up was completed by 99.2%, and median follow-up time was 30.0(22.5, 35.2) months. No operative death was observed, while perioperative myocardial infarction was observed in 2(1.7%) patients (AC 1.5% vs. AT 1.9%, p = ns). One patient in AC group suffered from cardiac tamponade. During the follow-up period, no death was observed. Ischemic events including nonfatal myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization and ischemic stroke were observed in 6(5.0%) patients (AC 4.5% vs. AT 5.6%, p = ns). Overt bleeding had occurred in 3(2.5%) patients (AC 3.0% vs. AT 1.9%, p = ns). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that MACCE-free survival of the two groups at 3 years was 97.0% in the AC group versus 94.1% in the AT group (p = ns). Conclusion: In patients undergoing CE + CABG, DAPT therapy can be effective and safe with comparable results between AC and AT therapy in terms of ischemic and bleeding events. Further studies are needed.

Background: Controversies exist on the treatment of moderate functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) in patients with severe aortic valve disease undergoing the aortic valve replacement (AVR). While a substantial proportion of these patients can be complicated with heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmrEF), established studies show that the latter might compromise the patient outcome. This study was aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of concomitant mitral valve surgery during AVR in patients with severe aortic valve disease followed by moderate FMR and HFmrEF.Methods: A total of 78 consecutive patients were retrospectively recruited. Patients were divided into control (isolated AVR) and treatment (AVR + mitral valve surgery) groups. Follow-up outcomes were compared by Kaplan-Meier method, followed by multiple adjustment with inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. The primary outcome was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).Results: Thirty-six patients received isolated AVR, while 42 received AVR with mitral valve repair or replacement. The median follow-up time was 28.7 months. Unadjusted analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the rate of MACCE between the two groups [hazard ratio (HR): 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48-2.69, P logrank =0.770], which was sustained in IPTW analysis [HR: 1.64, 95% CI: 0.59-4.55, P logrank =0.342]. In addition, while concomitant mitral valve surgery improved follow-up FMR more completely (P=0.026) in the IPTW analysis, the ejection fraction was comparable between the two groups (P=0.276). Furthermore, IPTW analysis also showed that mitral valve surgery was associated with the increased risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (P=0.007). Conclusions:In patients with aortic valve disease followed by moderate FMR and HFmrEF, mitral valve surgery concomitant to AVR may not bring extra benefit in the MACCE-free survival and the improvement of HFmrEF. However, while concomitant mitral valve surgery has priority on the complete improvement of FMR, it might increase the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury.