On-pump beating heart versus conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on clinical outcomes: a meta-analysis.

Abstract

BackgroundA hybrid surgery method, on-pump beating heart coronary artery bypass graft (ON-BH CABG), is supposed to be a promising technology for coronary artery revascularization. Here, we conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of the data derived from published studies on ON-BH CABG and conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (C-CABG) to compare their short-term and long-term clinical outcomes.MethodsWe searched major electronic databases and 24 studies incorporating 6,862 patients (1,847 ON-BH CABG and 5,015 C-CABG) were included eventually, and 9 studies of them were focusing on high-risk patients.ResultsCompared with ON-BH CABG, C-CABG was associated with a higher risk in early mortality [odds ratio (OR), 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09 to 1.93; P=0.01], myocardial infarction (MI) (OR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.41 to 4.78; P<0.01), low output syndrome (LOS) (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.55 to 4.23; P<0.01), renal failure (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.38 to 2.44; P<0.01). In contrast, there was no significant difference in long-term survival [hazard ratio (HR), 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.43; P=0.60]. In systematic analysis of the studies in high-risk patients, ON-BH CABG showed a lower risk in terms of early mortality, intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) usage, renal failure, hemodialysis, MI and pulmonary complication. No significant difference was observed in the long-term survival between ON-BH CABG and C-CABG.ConclusionsWith experienced and adept surgical team and mature ON-BH technology, ON-BH CABG may reduce the risk of postoperative death and complications in some patients. It might be an attractive alternative for high-risk patient populations.