Raja Shahzad G, Garg Sheena, Soni Manish K, Rochon Melissa, Marczin Nandor, Bhudia Sunil K, De Robertis Fabio, Bahrami Toufan
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Harefield Hospital, London, UK.
Department of Quality & Safety, Harefield Hospital, London, UK.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020 Mar 1;57(3):512-519. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezz261.
Despite evidence from several randomized controlled trials and observational studies validating short-term safety and efficacy of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), concerns persist regarding the impact of off-pump CABG on long-term survival and freedom from reintervention. This persistent scepticism regarding off-pump CABG prompted us to review our practice of CABG over the last 20 years with a view to comparing the impact of off-pump and on-pump CABG on short-term and long-term outcomes in a high-volume off-pump coronary surgery centre.
We retrospectively analysed prospectively collected data from the Patients Analysis and Tracking System database (Dendrite Clinical Systems, Oxford, UK) for all isolated first-time CABG procedures with at least 2 grafts performed at our institution from January 1996 to September 2017. Over the study period, 5995 off-pump CABG and 4875 on-pump CABG were performed by surgeons with exclusive off-pump and on-pump practices, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression and the Cox model were used to investigate the effect of off-pump versus on-pump procedures on short-term outcomes and long-term survival. Propensity score matching was used to compare the 2 matched groups.
Off-pump CABG was associated with a lower risk for 30-day mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-0.55; P < 0.001], reintubation/tracheostomy (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.47-0.72; P < 0.001) and re-exploration for bleeding (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37-0.62; P < 0.001). The benefit in terms of operative deaths from off-pump was significant in those with Society of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery logistic EuroSCORE >2 (interaction P = 0.04). When compared with on-pump CABG, off-pump CABG did not significantly reduce the risk of stroke (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88-1.12; P = 0.20) and postoperative haemofiltration (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.20; P = 0.35). At the median follow-up of 12 years (interquartile range 6-17, max 21), off-pump CABG did not affect late survival [log rank P = 0.24; hazard ratio (HR) 0.95, 95% CI 0.89-1.02] or the need for reintervention (log rank P = 0.12; HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.95-1.48).
This large volume, single-centre study with the longest reported follow-up confirms that off-pump CABG performed by experienced surgeons, who perform only off-pump procedures in a high-volume off-pump coronary surgery centre, is associated with lower risk of operative deaths, fewer postoperative complications and similar 20-year survival and freedom from reintervention rates compared with on-pump CABG.
尽管多项随机对照试验和观察性研究已证实非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的短期安全性和有效性,但对于非体外循环CABG对长期生存及再次干预的影响仍存在担忧。这种对非体外循环CABG持续的怀疑促使我们回顾过去20年我们的CABG实践,以便在一个高容量非体外循环冠状动脉手术中心比较非体外循环和体外循环CABG对短期和长期结局的影响。
我们回顾性分析了前瞻性收集的来自患者分析与跟踪系统数据库(Dendrite Clinical Systems,英国牛津)的数据,这些数据涉及1996年1月至2017年9月在我们机构进行的所有至少有2支血管移植的首次孤立CABG手术。在研究期间,分别由专门进行非体外循环和体外循环手术的外科医生实施了5995例非体外循环CABG和4875例体外循环CABG。采用多变量逻辑回归和Cox模型研究非体外循环与体外循环手术对短期结局和长期生存的影响。使用倾向评分匹配法比较两个匹配组。
非体外循环CABG与30天死亡率较低相关[比值比(OR)0.42,95%置信区间(CI)0.32 - 0.55;P < 0.001],再次插管/气管切开术(OR 0.58,95% CI 0.47 - 0.72;P < 0.001)以及因出血再次探查(OR 0.48,95% CI 0.37 - 0.62;P < 0.001)。对于心胸外科医师学会逻辑EuroSCORE >2的患者,非体外循环在手术死亡方面的益处显著(交互作用P = 0.04)。与体外循环CABG相比,非体外循环CABG并未显著降低中风风险(OR 0.96,95% CI 0.88 - 1.12;P = 0.20)和术后血液滤过风险(OR 0.98,95% CI 0.86 - 1.20;P = 0.35)。在中位随访12年(四分位间距6 - 17年,最长21年)时,非体外循环CABG不影响晚期生存[对数秩检验P = 0.24;风险比(HR)0.95,95% CI 0.89 - 1.02]或再次干预的需求(对数秩检验P = 0.12;HR 1.19,95% CI 0.95 - 1.48)。
这项大规模、单中心且随访时间最长的研究证实,在一个高容量非体外循环冠状动脉手术中心,由仅进行非体外循环手术的经验丰富的外科医生实施的非体外循环CABG,与体外循环CABG相比,手术死亡风险更低,术后并发症更少,20年生存率和再次干预率相似。