Background
The debate on the relative benefits of off‐pump and on‐pump coronary artery bypass surgery (
OPCABG
and
ONCABG
) is still open. We aimed to provide an updated and complete summary of the evidence on the differences between
OPCABG
and
ONCABG
and to explore whether the length of the follow‐up and the surgeons’ experience in
OPCABG
modify the comparative results.
Methods and Results
All randomized clinical trials comparing
OPCABG
and
ONCABG
were included. Primary outcome was follow‐up mortality. Secondary outcomes were operative mortality, perioperative stroke, perioperative myocardial infarction, and late repeated revascularization. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the length of the follow‐up and the percentage of crossover from the
OPCABG
group (used as a surrogate of surgeon experience with
OPCABG
). One hundred four trials were included (20 627 patients,
OPCABG
: 10 288;
ONCABG
: 10 339). Weighted mean follow‐up time was 3.7 years (range 1–7.5 years).
OPCABG
was associated with a higher risk of follow‐up mortality (incidence rate ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.23,
P
=0.05). The difference was significant only for trials with mean follow‐up of ≥3 years and for studies with a crossover rate of ≥10%. There was a trend toward lower risk of perioperative stroke and higher need for late repeated revascularization in the
OPCABG
arm.
Conclusions
OPCABG
is associated with a higher incidence of incomplete revascularization, an increased need for repeated revascularization, and decreased midterm survival compared with
ONCABG
. Surgeon inexperience in
OPCABG
is associated with late mortality.