Yu Hsi-Yu, Wu I-Hui, Chen Yih-Sharng, Chi Nai-Hsin, Hsu Ron-Bin, Tsai Chang-Her, Wang Shoei-Shen, Lin Fang-Yue
Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital and National Taiwan University School of Medicine, Taipei.
J Formos Med Assoc. 2003 Aug;102(8):556-62.
Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) [OPCAB] is preferred to conventional CABG with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for many specific subgroups, such as elderly patients and high-risk patients. Whether OPCAB should be the first choice of surgical procedure for a wider range of coronary artery disease patient subgroups remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of OPCAB and CPB in our hospital.
We retrospectively analyzed the results for 404 patients who received OPCAB or CPB between March 2000 and December 2001. Surgical methods adopted were at the discretion of the attending surgeon. In addition, subgroups of patients were analyzed to assess whether or not OPCAB was more successful in patients with specific characteristics.
There were no significant differences in the demographic data between the 2 groups. The perioperative mortality rate was similar for the CPB and OPCAB groups (2.5% and 2.0%, respectively; p = 1.00.) OPCAB was superior with respect to inotropic use, postoperative bleeding amount, transfusion amount, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay (p < 0.05 for all), and also had a lower incidence of re-entry due to bleeding (6.7% vs 13.6%, p = 0.04) and prolonged hospitalization > 30 days (1.5% vs 10.8%, p < 0.01). At 12 months' follow-up, the OPCAB group had a lower rate of mortality (1.5% vs 5.6%, p = 0.03) and a comparable rate of readmission for cardiac reasons (6.6% vs 9.6%, p = 0.28). The rate of poor in-hospital outcome was lower in the OPCAB than in the CPB group (3.0% vs 13.3%, p </= 0.01), while the percentage with poor results on follow-up was comparable between the 2 groups (7.1% vs 12.1%, p = 0.09). In addition, subgroups defined as: female, age > 65 years, age < 65 years, diabetes, peripheral arterial occlusive disease, end-stage renal disease, left ventricular ejection fraction < 50%, preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump use, and left-main disease had better in-hospital outcome in the OPCAB group compared with the CPB group, while no subgroups had worse in-hospital outcomes with OPCAB. The 12-month follow-up outcome was similar with the 2 techniques.
Use of OPCAB in CABG operation was associated with improved in-hospital outcome and similar follow-up outcome compared to CPB. No subgroup had a worse outcome with OPCAB.
对于许多特定亚组患者,如老年患者和高危患者,非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(OPCAB)比传统的体外循环(CPB)冠状动脉旁路移植术更受青睐。OPCAB是否应成为更广泛冠状动脉疾病患者亚组手术治疗的首选仍存在争议。本研究的目的是比较我院OPCAB和CPB的临床结果。
我们回顾性分析了2000年3月至2001年12月期间接受OPCAB或CPB的404例患者的结果。所采用的手术方法由主刀医生决定。此外,对患者亚组进行分析,以评估OPCAB在具有特定特征的患者中是否更成功。
两组患者的人口统计学数据无显著差异。CPB组和OPCAB组的围手术期死亡率相似(分别为2.5%和2.0%;p = 1.00)。OPCAB在使用血管活性药物、术后出血量、输血量、重症监护病房住院时间和住院时间方面更具优势(所有p < 0.05),并且因出血再次手术的发生率较低(6.7%对13.6%,p = 0.04)以及住院时间延长> 30天的发生率较低(1.5%对10.8%,p < 0.01)。在12个月的随访中,OPCAB组的死亡率较低(1.5%对5.6%,p = 0.03),因心脏原因再次入院的发生率相当(6.6%对9.6%,p = 0.28)。OPCAB组住院期间不良结局的发生率低于CPB组(3.0%对13.3%,p≤0.01),而随访结果不佳的百分比在两组之间相当(7.1%对12.1%,p = 0.09)。此外,定义为女性、年龄> 65岁、年龄< 65岁、糖尿病、外周动脉闭塞性疾病、终末期肾病、左心室射血分数< 50%、术前使用主动脉内球囊泵以及左主干病变的亚组,与CPB组相比,OPCAB组住院期间结局更好,而没有亚组在OPCAB治疗下住院期间结局更差。两种技术的12个月随访结果相似。
与CPB相比,在冠状动脉旁路移植手术中使用OPCAB可改善住院期间结局,且随访结果相似。没有亚组在OPCAB治疗下结局更差。