Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Division of Biostatistics, Center for Medical Research and Information, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Jun 3;63(21):2280-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.584. Epub 2014 Apr 2.
This study sought to compare long-term survival after off- and on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
Although several large-scale clinical trials have compared the surgical outcomes between off- and on-pump CABG, the long-term survival has not been compared between the 2 surgical strategies in a reasonably sized cohort.
We evaluated long-term survival data in 5,203 patients (age 62.9 ± 9.1 years, 1,340 females) who underwent elective isolated CABG (off-pump: n = 2,333; on-pump: n = 2,870) from 1989 through 2012. Vital statuses were validated using the Korean National Registry of Vital Statistics. Long-term survival was compared with the use of propensity scores and inverse probability weighting to adjust selection bias.
Patients undergoing on-pump CABG had a higher number of distal anastomoses than those undergoing off-pump CABG (3.7 ± 1.2 vs. 3.0 ± 1.1; p < 0.001). Survival data were complete in 5,167 patients (99.3%), with a median follow-up duration of 6.4 years (interquartile range: 3.7 to 10.5 years; maximum 23.1 years). During follow-up, 1,181 patients (22.7%) died. After adjustment, both groups of patients showed a similar risk of death at 30 days (odds ratio: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 1.40; p = 0.31) and up to 1 year (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.65; p = 0.62). For overall mortality, however, patients undergoing off-pump CABG were at a significantly higher risk of death (HR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.71; p < 0.0001) compared with those undergoing on-pump CABG. In subgroup analyses, on-pump CABG conferred survival benefits in most demographic, clinical, and anatomic subgroups compared with off-pump CABG.
In patients undergoing elective isolated CABG, on-pump strategy conferred a long-term survival advantage compared with off-pump strategy.
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)后的长期生存情况。
尽管多项大规模临床试验比较了非体外循环和体外循环 CABG 之间的手术结果,但在相当规模的队列中尚未比较这两种手术策略的长期生存情况。
我们评估了 1989 年至 2012 年期间接受择期单纯 CABG(非体外循环:n = 2333;体外循环:n = 2870)的 5203 例患者(年龄 62.9 ± 9.1 岁,1340 例女性)的长期生存数据。通过韩国国家生命统计登记处验证了生存状态。使用倾向评分和逆概率加权来调整选择偏倚,比较长期生存情况。
接受体外循环 CABG 的患者比接受非体外循环 CABG 的患者有更多的远端吻合口(3.7 ± 1.2 对 3.0 ± 1.1;p < 0.001)。5167 例患者(99.3%)的生存数据完整,中位随访时间为 6.4 年(四分位距:3.7 至 10.5 年;最长 23.1 年)。随访期间,有 1181 例患者(22.7%)死亡。调整后,两组患者在 30 天(比值比:0.70;95%置信区间[CI]:0.35 至 1.40;p = 0.31)和 1 年(风险比[HR]:1.11;95% CI:0.74 至 1.65;p = 0.62)时的死亡风险相似。然而,对于总体死亡率,接受非体外循环 CABG 的患者死亡风险显著更高(HR:1.43;95% CI:1.19 至 1.71;p < 0.0001)。在亚组分析中,与非体外循环 CABG 相比,体外循环 CABG 在大多数人口统计学、临床和解剖亚组中提供了生存获益。
在接受择期单纯 CABG 的患者中,与非体外循环策略相比,体外循环策略具有长期生存优势。