Kowalewski Mariusz, Pawliszak Wojciech, Raffa Giuseppe Maria, Malvindi Pietro Giorgio, Kowalkowska Magdalena Ewa, Zaborowska Katarzyna, Kowalewski Janusz, Tarelli Giuseppe, Taggart David Paul, Anisimowicz Lech
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Dr Antoni Jurasz Memorial University Hospital in Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland Faculty of Health Sciences, Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus Univeristy in Toruń, Toruń, Poland
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Dr Antoni Jurasz Memorial University Hospital in Bydgoszcz, Bydgoszcz, Poland.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016 May;49(5):1428-40. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezv387. Epub 2015 Nov 3.
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of care in patients with extensive coronary artery disease. Yet the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is believed to be a major determinant of perioperative morbidity. Novel techniques are sought to tackle the shortcomings of CPB, among them off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) and miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) systems have been extensively tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To assess perioperative safety and efficacy of MECC and OPCAB when compared with conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC).
Published literature and major congress proceedings were screened for RCTs evaluating the safety and efficacy of MECC, OPCAB and CECC. Selected end-points such as 30-day all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebral stroke, postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) and renal dysfunction were assessed in a Bayesian-framework network meta-analysis.
A total of 134 studies with 22 778 patients were included. When compared with CECC, both OPCAB and MECC significantly reduced 30-day all-cause mortality [odds ratios (95% credible intervals): 0.75 (0.51-0.99) and 0.46 (0.22-0.91)], respectively. No differences in respect to MI were demonstrated with either strategy. OPCAB, when compared with CECC, reduced the odds of cerebral stroke [0.57 (0.34-0.80)]; 60% reduction was observed with MECC when compared with CECC [0.40 (0.19-0.78)]. Both OPCAB and MECC reduced the odds of POAF [0.66 (0.48-0.90) and 0.62 (0.35-0.98), respectively] when compared with CECC. OPCAB conferred over 30% reduction of renal dysfunction when compared with CECC [0.69 (0.46-0.92)]. MECC reduced these odds by more than 50% [0.47 (0.24-0.89)]. Ranking of treatments emerging from the probability analysis (highest to lowest SUCRA values) was MECC followed by OPCAB and CECC.
MECC and OPCAB both improve perioperative outcomes following coronary bypass surgery when compared with conventional CABG performed with extracorporeal circulation. MECC may represent an attractive compromise between OPCAB and CECC.
冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)仍是广泛冠状动脉疾病患者的治疗标准。然而,体外循环(CPB)的使用被认为是围手术期发病率的主要决定因素。人们正在寻求新技术来解决CPB的缺点,其中非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(OPCAB)和小型体外循环(MECC)系统已在随机对照试验(RCT)中进行了广泛测试。旨在评估MECC和OPCAB与传统体外循环(CECC)相比的围手术期安全性和疗效。
筛选已发表的文献和主要会议记录,以查找评估MECC、OPCAB和CECC安全性和疗效的RCT。在贝叶斯框架网络荟萃分析中评估选定的终点,如30天全因死亡率、心肌梗死(MI)、脑卒、术后房颤(POAF)和肾功能不全。
共纳入134项研究,涉及22778例患者。与CECC相比,OPCAB和MECC均显著降低了30天全因死亡率[优势比(95%可信区间):分别为0.75(0.51-0.99)和0.46(0.22-0.91)]。两种策略在MI方面均未显示出差异。与CECC相比,OPCAB降低了脑卒中的几率[0.57(0.34-0.80)];与CECC相比,MECC降低了60%[0.40(0.19-0.78)]。与CECC相比,OPCAB和MECC均降低了POAF的几率[分别为0.66(0.48-0.90)和0.62(0.35-0.98)]。与CECC相比,OPCAB使肾功能不全的几率降低了30%以上[0.69(0.46-0.92)]。MECC使这些几率降低了50%以上[0.47(0.24-0.89)]。概率分析得出的治疗排名(SUCRA值从高到低)为MECC、OPCAB和CECC。
与采用体外循环的传统CABG相比,MECC和OPCAB均改善了冠状动脉搭桥手术后的围手术期结局。MECC可能是OPCAB和CECC之间有吸引力的折衷方案。