Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, United States of America.
Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, United States of America; Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, United States of America.
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Jul;21(7):821-825. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2019.12.008. Epub 2019 Dec 5.
Large institutional and administrative datasets that have compared on pump versus off pump first time coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, comparison of off-pump vs on-pump outcomes in patients undergoing redo CABG are limited in current literature.
All patients who underwent redo CABG for coronary artery disease from 2011 to 2017 at our institution were included in the study. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with 5-year mortality and readmission.
Three hundred and fifty patients underwent redo CABG; of which, 309 underwent on-pump CABG and 41 underwent off-pump CABG. Blood product transfusion (31.7% vs 58.9%; p = 0.001) and new onset atrial fibrillation (17.1% vs 35.6%; p = 0.018) were higher in the on-pump cohort. There was no difference in 30-day (2.4% vs 8.1%; p = 0.209), 1-year (4.9% vs 16.5%; p = 0.074), or 5-year mortality (31.7% vs 35.6%; p = 0.213) for off vs on pump redo CABG. There was no difference in 30-day or 1- hospital readmissions between groups. Five-year all cause readmissions (76.9% vs 55.3%; p = 0.037) was significantly higher in the off-pump redo CABG group. On multivariable analysis, on vs. off pump CABG was not significantly associated with mortality or readmission at 5 years.
There was no short or long-term survival advantage for on-pump vs off-pump CABG despite risk adjustment. Hospital readmissions at 5-years were higher in the off-pump group.
有大型机构和管理数据集比较了首次冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)中的泵血与非泵血。然而,目前文献中比较再次 CABG 中不停跳与不停跳手术结果的研究有限。
本研究纳入了 2011 年至 2017 年在我院因冠心病行再次 CABG 的所有患者。采用 Cox 回归分析确定与 5 年死亡率和再入院相关的变量。
350 例患者行再次 CABG;其中,309 例患者行体外循环 CABG,41 例患者行非体外循环 CABG。术中输血(31.7% vs 58.9%;p=0.001)和新发心房颤动(17.1% vs 35.6%;p=0.018)在体外循环组中更高。两组患者 30 天(2.4% vs 8.1%;p=0.209)、1 年(4.9% vs 16.5%;p=0.074)或 5 年死亡率(31.7% vs 35.6%;p=0.213)无差异。两组患者 30 天或 1 年再住院率无差异。非体外循环再次 CABG 组 5 年全因再入院率(76.9% vs 55.3%;p=0.037)明显更高。多变量分析显示,体外循环与非体外循环 CABG 与 5 年死亡率或再入院无关。
尽管进行了风险调整,但体外循环与非体外循环 CABG 相比,在短期或长期生存方面没有优势。非体外循环组患者 5 年的住院再入院率更高。