Racz Michael J, Hannan Edward L, Isom O Wayne, Subramanian Valavanur A, Jones Robert H, Gold Jeffrey P, Ryan Thomas J, Hartman Alan, Culliford Alfred T, Bennett Edward, Lancey Robert A, Rose Eric A
University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, New York 12144-3456, USA.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Feb 18;43(4):557-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.09.045.
This study was designed to compare in-hospital mortality and complications and three-year mortality and revascularization for off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery after adjusting for patient risk.
The use of off-pump CABG surgery has increased tremendously in recent years, but little is known about its long-term outcomes relative to on-pump CABG surgery, and most studies have been very small.
Short- and long-term outcomes (inpatient mortality and complications, three-year risk-adjusted mortality, and mortality/revascularization) were explored for patients who underwent off-pump CABG surgery (9135 patients) and on-pump CABG surgery (59044 patients) with median sternotomy from 1997 to 2000 in the state of New York.
Risk-adjusted inpatient mortality was 2.02% for off-pump versus 2.16% for on-pump (p = 0.390). Off-pump patients had lower rates of perioperative stroke (1.6% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.003) and bleeding requiring reoperation (1.6% vs. 2.2%, p < 0.001) and higher rates of gastrointestinal bleeding, perforation, or infarction (1.2% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.003). Off-pump patients had lower postoperative lengths of stay (median 5 days vs. 6 days, p < 0.001). On-pump patients had higher three-year survival (adjusted risk ratio [RR] =1.086, p = 0.045) and higher freedom from death or revascularization (adjusted RR = 1.232, p < 0.001). When analyses were limited to 1999 to 2000, the two-year adjusted hazard ratio for survival was not significant (adjusted RR = 0.99, p = 0.81).
On-pump patients experience better long-term survival and freedom from revascularization than off-pump patients. However, the survival benefit from on-pump procedures was no longer present in the last two years of the study.
本研究旨在比较非体外循环和体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)在调整患者风险后的院内死亡率、并发症以及三年死亡率和血运重建情况。
近年来,非体外循环CABG手术的应用大幅增加,但相对于体外循环CABG手术,其长期预后情况鲜为人知,且大多数研究规模较小。
对1997年至2000年在纽约州接受正中胸骨切开术的非体外循环CABG手术患者(9135例)和体外循环CABG手术患者(59044例)的短期和长期预后(住院死亡率和并发症、三年风险调整死亡率以及死亡率/血运重建情况)进行了探讨。
风险调整后的院内死亡率,非体外循环组为2.02%,体外循环组为2.16%(p = 0.390)。非体外循环患者围手术期卒中发生率较低(1.6%对2.0%,p = 0.003),因出血需再次手术的发生率也较低(1.6%对2.2%,p < 0.001),但胃肠道出血、穿孔或梗死发生率较高(1.2%对0.9%,p = 0.003)。非体外循环患者术后住院时间较短(中位数5天对6天,p < 0.001)。体外循环患者三年生存率较高(调整风险比[RR]=1.086,p = 0.045),免于死亡或血运重建的比例也较高(调整RR = 1.232,p < 0.001)。当分析仅限于1999年至2000年时,两年调整后的生存风险比无统计学意义(调整RR = 0.99,p = 0.81)。
体外循环患者比非体外循环患者有更好的长期生存率和免于血运重建的情况。然而,在研究的最后两年,体外循环手术的生存获益不再存在。