Department of Surgery/Cardiothoracic, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Emory University School of Medicine, The Emory Clinic, Atlanta, Georgia.
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013 Autumn;25(3):228-36. doi: 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2013.09.004.
Historically, the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in performing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the "gold standard" in coronary revascularization. However, with greater understanding of the inflammatory effects of CPB and the increased risks of strokes in atherosclerotic or calcified aortas, there has been a growing interest in less-invasive approaches to the standard conventional technique. One such approach is performing coronary revascularization without using CPB, also known as off-pump CABG (OPCAB). Several studies have reported that OPCAB is a safe and effective technique that avoids the significant morbidity associated with the use of CPB, whereas other studies report no overall advantage with the avoidance of CPB in coronary revascularization and a trend toward better outcomes in patients undergoing the conventional on-pump technique. The controversial topic of on-pump vs OPCAB has been the subject of ongoing debate for over a decade. This article reviews current literature and hopefully provides an unbiased guide for assessing the values, benefits, and risks of both the techniques.
从历史上看,体外循环 (CPB) 在进行冠状动脉旁路移植术 (CABG) 中的应用一直是冠状动脉血运重建的“金标准”。然而,随着对 CPB 的炎症作用的认识不断加深,以及在粥样硬化或钙化主动脉中发生中风的风险增加,人们对标准传统技术的微创方法越来越感兴趣。一种这样的方法是在不使用 CPB 的情况下进行冠状动脉血运重建,也称为非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术 (OPCAB)。几项研究报告称,OPCAB 是一种安全有效的技术,可以避免与使用 CPB 相关的重大发病率,而其他研究则报告称,在冠状动脉血运重建中避免 CPB 并没有总体优势,并且倾向于接受传统体外循环技术的患者的结果更好。十多年来,关于体外循环与非体外循环的争议话题一直是讨论的主题。本文综述了目前的文献,希望为评估这两种技术的价值、益处和风险提供一个公正的指南。