Moscarelli Marco, Harling Leanne, Ashrafian Hutan, Athanasiou Thanos
Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013 Mar;16(3):350-5. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivs476. Epub 2012 Nov 25.
A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) grafting should be considered as an alternative to the conventional on-pump surgery (ONCAB) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) requiring emergency revascularization. Eighty-two papers were identified by a systematic search, of which nine were judged to best answer the clinical question. Of these, one was a randomized controlled trial and the remaining eight were retrospective observational studies. The author, journal, date, patient group, country of publication, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses were tabulated. In total, these nine studies included 3001 patients (n = 817 OPCAB, 2184 ONCAB) undergoing emergency revascularization in the setting of ACS. The timing between the onset of ACS and operative intervention ranged from 6 to 72 h. All cases were categorized as urgent/emergent according to the National confidential enquiry into patient outcome and death classification of intervention. Six studies included patients with preoperative cardiogenic shock; however the majority of patients were haemodynamically stable at the time of surgery. Three out of nine studies showed an improvement in 30-day mortality with OPCAB although the remaining six reveal no significant mortality benefit. No difference in long-term mortality was observed between the two techniques. OPCAB was associated with significantly fewer grafts per patient (six studies) and less complete revascularization (two studies). We conclude that whilst OPCAB may have a beneficial effect on 30-day mortality in haemodynamically stable patients undergoing emergency revascularization, there is a lack of high-quality data with clearly defined patient demographics. Future studies must ensure adequate preoperative matching between OPCAB and ONCAB groups and clearly categorize haemodynamic status, disease pattern and time to surgery in order to determine the patients in whom OPCAB may confer the greatest benefit.
根据结构化方案撰写了一篇心脏外科的最佳证据主题。所探讨的问题是,对于患有急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)且需要紧急血运重建的患者,非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥术(OPCAB)是否应被视为传统体外循环手术(ONCAB)的替代方案。通过系统检索确定了82篇论文,其中9篇被判定为能最佳回答该临床问题。其中,1篇为随机对照试验,其余8篇为回顾性观察研究。将作者、期刊、日期、患者组、发表国家、相关结局、结果及研究不足制成表格。这9项研究总共纳入了3001例在ACS情况下接受紧急血运重建的患者(n = 817例OPCAB,2184例ONCAB)。ACS发作至手术干预的时间间隔为6至72小时。根据国家患者结局保密调查和干预死亡分类,所有病例均被归类为紧急/急诊。6项研究纳入了术前心源性休克患者;然而,大多数患者在手术时血流动力学稳定。9项研究中有3项显示OPCAB可改善30天死亡率,尽管其余6项研究未显示出显著的死亡率获益。两种技术在长期死亡率方面未观察到差异。OPCAB与每位患者的移植血管显著减少(6项研究)和血运重建不完全(2项研究)相关。我们得出结论,虽然OPCAB可能对接受紧急血运重建的血流动力学稳定患者的30天死亡率有有益影响,但缺乏高质量数据且患者人口统计学定义不明确。未来的研究必须确保OPCAB组和ONCAB组术前充分匹配,并明确划分血流动力学状态、疾病模式和手术时间,以确定OPCAB可能带来最大益处的患者。