Resultados de la cirugía coronaria sin circulación extracorpórea en dos períodos de uso de la técnica / Off pump coronary artery surgery: comparison of two consecutive periods with the technique

OBJETIVO: Describir los resultados inmediatos y alejados de la cirugía coronaria sin circulación extracorpórea (CEC) y comparar los resultados de la estrategia de indicación de la técnica en dos períodos. PACIENTES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio retrospectivo de 428 pacientes intervenidos de cirugía coronaria sin CEC entre 2004 y 2019 en el Hospital Guillermo Grant Benavente. Se dividen en Grupo 1, período 2004-2008 (N=216) y Grupo 2, período 2009-2019 (N=212). Se estudiaron sus características clínicas, resultados quirúrgicos, morbi-mortalidad operatoria y eventos adversos al 31 de junio de 2019 y se compararon los resultados de los grupos a 5 años. RESULTADOS: No hubo diferencias en la distribución por sexo, edad, factores de riesgo y patologías asociadas entre los grupos. Hubo diferencias en las lesiones coronarias entre los Grupos 1 y 2: lesión de un vaso en 45 (20,4%) versus 125 (59%) y tres vasos en 75 (34,5%) versus 19 (9%) respectivamente (p<0,001). El riesgo operatorio por EuroSCORE logístico fue 3,3±3,95 versus 5,4±7,7 (p<0,001). Se confeccionaron 2,3±0,9 anastomosis distales en el Grupo 1 versus 1,3±0,6 en Grupo 2 (p<0,001). La tasa de complicaciones fueron 17,6% en el Grupo 1 y 5,7% en el 2 (p<0,001). La mortalidad operatoria globral fue 4 pacientes (0,9%). El seguimiento comprendió 9,2±3,8 años. La sobrevida a 10 años fue 76,9% y tasa de eventos cardiovasculares mayores 37,6%. No hubo diferencia entre los grupos a los 5 años. CONCLUSIONES: La selección de pacientes con anatomía más favorables o de mayor riesgo operatorio tuvo tasas de sobrevida y eventos similares a los observados con la estrategia menos selectiva a 5 años de seguimiento.

AIM: To describe the immediate and long-term results of off pump coronary artery surgery without cardiopulmonary bypass (OPCABG) comparing the results observed in two consecutive periods. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of 428 patients undergoing OPCABG between 2004 and 2019 at the Guillermo Grant Benavente Hospital. Group 1 patients operated between 2004 - 2008 (N = 216) and Group 2 operated between 2009 and 2019 (N = 212). RESULTS: There were no differences in sex, age, risk factors and co morbidities between groups. There were differences in the number of coronary lesions between groups: one vessel disease in 45 (20.4%) versus 125 (59%) and three vessels in 75 (34.5%) versus 19 (9%) in Group 1 vs Group 2, respectively (p <0.001). The operative risk for logistic EuroSCORE was 3.3 ± 3.95 in Group 1 versus 5.4 ± 7.7 in Group 2 (p <0.001). 2.3 ± 0.9 distal anastomoses were performed in Group 1 compared to 1.3 ± 0.6 in Group 2 (p<0.001). Adverse events occurred in 17.6% o patients in Group 1 compared to 5.7% in Group 2 (p<0.001). Overall, 4 patients died (0.9%). Mean overall survival at 10 years was 76.9% and the rate of major cardiovascular events was 37.6%, no differences being observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years of follow-up the selection of patients with more favorable anatomy or greater operative risk had similar survival rates and events than those observed with the least selective strategy.

Cirugía coronaria sin circulación extracorpórea: comparación con cirugía de revascularización miocárdica convencional con método Propensity Score Matching / Coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass: Propensity Score matched comparison with conventional surgery

INTRODUCCIÓN: La cirugía sin circulación extracorpórea (CEC) es una variante de la técnica convencional. Existe controversia sobre sus beneficios, seguridad y resultados a largo plazo. OBJETIVO: Describir resultados inmediatos y alejados (a 5 años) de cirugía sin CEC y compararlos a cirugía con CEC. MATERIALES y MÉTODOS: Estudio descriptivo-analítico, con revisión de base de datos del equipo, protocolos quirúrgicos, fichas clínicas, seguimiento clínico y/o entrevista telefónica y en registro civil de pacientes operados entre enero de 2006 y diciembre de 2008. Total 658 cirugías coronarias aisladas, 466 (70,8%) con CEC y 192 (29,2%) sin CEC. Se realizó técnica de Propensity Score Matching para identificar grupos de pacientes similares y comparar resultados entre ambas técnicas. RECSULTADOS: Mortalidad operatoria en 1,0% en el grupo sin CEC y 2,1% en el grupo con CEC (p = 0,411). En seguimiento alejado: Supervivencia a 1, 3 y 5 años de 97,4%, 95,3% y 92,2% respectivamente sin CEC vs 97,9%, 96,3% y 92,7% respectivamente con CEC (p = 0,824). Mayor-Adverse-Cardiac-and-Cerebrovascular-Events (MACCE) 28 (17,3%) sin CEC vs 26 (16,0%) (p = 0,71). Infarto agudo al miocardio (IAM) 3 (1,9%) sin CEC vs 6 (3,7%) (p = 0,33), accidente vascular encefálico (AVE) 6 (3,7%) sin CEC vs 3 (1,9%) (p = 0,3) y reintervención 4 (2,5%) sin CEC vs 3 (1,9%) (p = 0,703). Recurrencia de angina 9 (5,6%) sin CEC vs 10 (6,2%) (p = 0,813). CONCLUSIONES: En nuestra serie de paciente ambas técnicas fueron comparables en resultados inmediatos y alejados.

INTRODUCTION: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) without extracorporeal circulation (off pump) is a technical alternative to conventional surgery. There is ongoing controversy about its benefits, safety and results. AIM: To describe immediate and late results of off pump CABG and compare it with conventional surgery. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Descriptive-analytic, study with review of surgical protocols, clinical charts, civil registry for survival and telephonic follow up of patient who underwent CABG in our center between January 2006 and December 2008. In total 658 isolated CABG cases, 466 (70.8%) on pump and 192 (29.2%) off pump. A Propensity Score Matching was used to match off pump CABG patients with those undergoing On Pump CABG. RESULTS: Mortality was 1.0% in off pump and 2.1% in on pump patients (p = 0.411). At follow up: 1.3 and 5 year survival was 97.4%, 95.3% and 92.2% respectively in off pump patients and 97.9%, 96.3% and 92.7% respectively in On Pump patients (p = 0.824). Mayor-adverse-Cardiac-and-Cerebrovascular-events (MACCE) in 28 (17.3%) off pump vs 26 (16.0%) (p = 0.71) on pump, myocardial infarction in 3 (1.9%) off pump vs 6 (3.7%) on pump (p = 0.33), stroke in 6 (3.7%) off pump vs 3 (1.9%) on pump (p = 0.3) and coronary reintervention in 4 (2.5%) off pump vs 3 (1.9%) on pump patients (p = 0.703). Recurrence of angina in 9 (5.6%) off pump vs 10 (6.2%). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience both techniques had similar results.

Early and medium outcomes of on-pump beating-heart versus off-pump cabg in patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction

Abstract Objective: This study aims to compare the early and medium outcomes of on-pump beating-heart (OPBH) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and off-pump CABG (OPCABG) in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 30% and 40%. Methods: This is a retrospective study of ischemic heart disease patients with LVEF between 30% and 40% who underwent surgical revascularization from January 2013 to December 2017. Patients were divided into OPBH group (n=44) and OPCABG group (n=68), according to the surgical method. Clinical material with early and medium outcomes were investigated and compared between these groups. Results: The two groups had similar baseline. Two OPBH patients and 3 OPCABG patients died in the hospital, which had no statistical significance (P>0.05). OPBH patients received a greater number of grafts (3.74±0.84) and presented more improved LVEF (45.92±7.11%) than OPCABG patients (3.36±0.80) and (42.81±9.29%), respectively, which had statistical significance (P<0.05). An increased amount of drainage during the first 12 hours was found in the OPBH group (P<0.05). Reoperation for bleeding, duration of mechanic ventilation, and other early outcomes had no statistical significance between the two groups. During the medium-time follow-up, OPBH patients showed significantly lower major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-free survival time (P=0.049) than OPCABG patients. Conclusion: The OPBH technique was a safe and an acceptable alternative for surgical revascularization in patients with moderate left ventricular dysfunction which provided better mid-term MACE-free survival compared with OPCABG.

Selenium, vitamin c and n-acetylcysteine do not reduce the risk of acute kidney injury after off-pump cabg: a randomized clinical trial

Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of perioperative administration of N-acetylcysteine, selenium and vitamin C on the incidence and outcomes of acute kidney injury after off-pump coronary bypass graft surgery. Methods: 291 patients requiring elective off-pump coronary bypass graft surgery were randomized to receive either N-acetylcysteine, vitamin C and selenium 600 mg, 1500 mg, 0.5 mg, and nothing orally twice a day, respectively, from the day before to 2 days after surgery. They were assessed for the development of acute kidney injury using Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria, time of onset, its severity and duration, duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Results: 272 patients completed the study. The total incidence of acute kidney injury was 22.1% (n=60) with 14 (20.9%), 15 (22.1%), 21 (31.8%), and 10 (14.1%) patients in the vitamin C, NAC, selenium, and control groups, respectively (P=0.096). We did not register significant differences in the incidence, the time of occurrence, the severity and the duration of acute kidney injury, as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation, the intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and the in-hospital mortality among the four groups. Conclusion: We found that perioperative administration of N-acetylcysteine, vitamin C and selenium were not effective in preventing acute kidney injury and associated morbidity and mortality after off-pump coronary bypass graft surgery.

Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in frail patients: study protocol for the fragile multicenter randomized controlled trial

Abstract Introduction: Advances in modern medicine have led to people living longer and healthier lives. Frailty is an emerging concept in medicine yet to be explored as a risk factor in cardiac surgery. When it comes to CABG surgery, randomized controlled clinical trials have primarily focused on low-risk (ROOBY, CORONARY), elevated-risk (GOPCABE) or high-risk patients (BBS), but not on frail patients. Therefore, we believe that off-pump CABG could be an important technique in patients with limited functional capacity to respond to surgical stress. In this study, the authors introduce the new national, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial "FRAGILE", to be developed in the main cardiac surgery centers of Brazil, to clarify the potential benefit of off-pump CABG in frail patients. Methods: FRAGILE is a two-arm, parallel-group, multicentre, individually randomized (1:1) controlled trial which will enroll 630 patients with blinded outcome assessment (at 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years and 3 years), which aims to compare adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events after off-pump versus on-pump CABG in pre-frail and frail patients. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest with successful resuscitation, low cardiac output syndrome/cardiogenic shock, stroke, and coronary reintervention. Secondary outcomes will be major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, operative time, mechanical ventilation time, hyperdynamic shock, new onset of atrial fibrillation, renal replacement therapy, reoperation for bleeding, pneumonia, length of stay in intensive care unit, length of stay in hospital, number of units of blood transfused, graft patency, rate of complete revascularization, neurobehavioral outcomes after cardiac surgery, quality of life after cardiac surgery and costs. Discussion: FRAGILE trial will determine whether off-pump CABG is superior to conventional on-pump CABG in the surgical treatment of pre-frail and frail patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02338947. Registered on August 29th 2014; last updated on March 21st 2016.

Revascularización coronaria sin circulación extracorpórea: Supervivencia alejada / Off-pump coronary revascularization. Late survival

Aunque los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados han comparado los resultados de la cirugía de revascularización coronaria (CRM) con y sin circulación extracorpórea (CEC), el efecto a largo plazo con la utilización de estas técnicas no ha sido evaluado. El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar la supervivencia alejada con la utilización de CRM con y sin CEC. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes sometidos a CRM durante el período 1996-2015 (n = 4687). La supervivencia a largo plazo y la incidencia de eventos cardíacos se compararon entre los que recibieron CRM sin-CEC (n = 3402) frente a los pacientes con-CEC (n = 1285). El punto final primario se definió como muerte por cualquier causa, analizándose la supervivencia a 10 años. Para reducir posibles sesgos se realizó un análisis ajustado por riesgo. La mortalidad hospitalaria global fue 3.1%, observándose una diferencia entre ambos grupos (2.3% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.0001) a favor de la cirugía sin-CEC. El análisis de la mortalidad no ajustada a largo plazo no mostró una diferencia significativa a 10 años (sin-CEC vs. con-CEC: 77.9% ± 1.2% vs. 80.2% ± 1.3%, p log rank = 0.361). En el análisis ajustado por riesgo tampoco se observó una diferencia significativa de supervivencia a 10 años (84.2% ± 2.9% vs. 80.3% ± 2.4%, p = 0.169). En conclusión, la CRM sin-CEC presentó una menor mortalidad hospitalaria, y no se encontró una diferencia en la mortalidad a largo plazo en comparación con CRM con-CEC.

Although randomized clinical trials have compared the short-term results of coronary revascularization with on-pump vs. off-pump, the long-term survival effect of off-pump coronary surgery has not been analyzed. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term survival of patients with coronary surgery with off-pump technique. All patients that underwent coronary revascularization from November 1996 to March 2015 were included (n = 4687). We analyzed the long-term survival and the incidence of cardiac events between patients who received off-pump coronary revascularization (n = 3402) against those revascularized with on-pump technique (n = 1285). The primary endpoint was defined as death from any cause. To reduce potential biases, risk-adjusted analysis was performed (propensity score). In-hospital mortality and during follow-up (10 years) for both groups were analyzed. The overall hospital mortality was 3.1%. A statistically significant difference between groups in favor of off-pump surgery was observed (2.3% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.0001). In the survival analysis, off-pump surgery proved to have similar long-term survival as on-pump surgery (off-pump vs. on-pump: 77.9% ± 1.2% vs. 80.2% ± 1.3%, p log rank = 0.361); even in the adjusted survival analysis (84.2% ± 2.9% vs. 80.3% ± 2.4%, p = 0.169). In conclusion, off-pump coronary surgery was associated with lower in-hospital mortality; and it was not associated with increased long-term survival compared with on-pump surgery.

Revascularização cirúrgica do miocárdio com versus sem circulação extracorpórea: O que mostram as evidências? / On-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: What do the evidence show?

A proposta da revascularização do miocárdio sem emprego da circulação extracorpórea visa à diminuição da morbimortalidade decorrente dos potenciais efeitos deletérios da circulação extracorpórea. Todavia, embora a maioria dos estudos demonstre que a revascularização sem circulação extracorpórea é factível e forneça resultados similares à operação com circulação extracorpórea, no que se refere à morbimortalidade hospitalar, e pode mesmo diminuir a incidência de alguns eventos, sua eficácia a médio e longo prazo tem sido questionada. Alguns estudos demonstram menor sobrevida em pacientes submetidos à revascularização do miocárdio sem circulação extracorpórea, levantando a hipótese de que a revascularização incompleta e/ou a pior evolução dos enxertos realizados na operação sem circulação extracorpórea em comparação à operação com circulação extracorpórea, observadas em alguns estudos, seriam responsáveis por essa evolução desfavorável.

The main purpose of the off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery is to reduce morbidity and mortality due cardiopulmonary bypass. However, even though many studies have shown that off-pump coronary artery bypass is feasible and provides hospital morbidity and mortality similar to the on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery, probably better in some aspects, its long-term results have been questioned, since some trials have shown reduced survival with off-pump coronary artery bypass. It is likely that incomplete revascularization and/or poor graft patency with off-pump coronary artery bypass probably are responsible for such unfavorable outcome.

Análise dos resultados imediatos da cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio com e sem circulação extracorpórea / Analysis of immediate results of on-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery

OBJETIVO: Comparar os resultados imediatos da cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio com e sem circulação extracorpórea (CEC). MÉTODOS: De janeiro de 2007 a janeiro de 2009, 177 pacientes foram submetidos a cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio (CRM), sendo 92, sem CEC e 85 com CEC. Foram avaliados distribuição demográfica, fatores de risco pré-operatórios, classe funcional e avaliação de risco pelo EuroSCORE. A evolução no pós-operatório foi comparada entre os grupos. RESULTADOS: A média de enxertos por paciente foi de 2,48 ± 0,43, no grupo sem CEC, e 2,90 ± 0,59, no com CEC. No grupo sem CEC, 97,8% dos pacientes receberam um enxerto de artéria torácica interna, enquanto que no grupo com CEC a porcentagem foi de 94,1% (P = 0,03). A taxa de revascularização completa foi similar em ambos os grupos. No grupo sem CEC, a artéria circunflexa foi revascularizada em 48,9% dos casos e, em 68,2%, no grupo com CEC (P = 0,01). A mortalidade hospitalar foi de 4,3% e 4,7%, respectivamente, no grupo sem CEC e com CEC (P = 0,92). Os pacientes operados sem CEC apresentaram menor índice de complicações em relação ao infarto perioperatório (P= 0,02) e ao uso de balão intra-aórtico (P= 0,01). CONCLUSÃO: A cirurgia coronariana sem CEC é um procedimento seguro, com mortalidade hospitalar similar a dos pacientes operados com CEC, com menores taxas de complicações e de incidência de infarto perioperatório, bem como menor necessidade de balão intra-aórtico.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the immediate results of patients undergoing on-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: From January 2007 to January 2009, 177 patients underwent CABG, being 92 off-pump and 85 onpump. We evaluated the demographics, preoperative risk factors, preoperative functional class and risk assessment by the EuroSCORE. The postoperative evolution was compared between groups. RESULTS: The mean number of grafts per patient was 2.48 ± 0.43 in off-pump group and 2.90 ± 0.59 in on-pump group. In the off-pump group, 97.8% of patients received an internal thoracic artery graft, while on-pump group the percentage was 94.1% (P = 0.03). The rate of complete revascularization was similar in both groups. In off-pump group, the circumflex artery was revascularized in 48.9% and 68.2% in the onpump group (P = 0.01). Hospital mortality was 4.3% and 4.7%, respectively in the off-pump group in the on-pump group (P = 0.92). Off-pump group had fewer complications in relation to perioperative myocardial infarction (P = 0.02) and use of intra-aortic balloon pump (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The off-pump CABG is a safe procedure with hospital mortality similar to that observed in on-pump CABG, with lower rates of complications and less need for intra-aortic balloon.

Cirurgia de revascularização miocárdica com circulação extracorpórea versus sem circulação extracorpórea: uma metanálise / On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery: a meta-analysis / Cirugía de revascularización miocárdica con circulación xtracorpórea versus sin circulación extracorpórea: un metanálisis

Há controvérsias quanto aos eventuais benefícios da cirurgia de revascularização miocárdica sem a técnica de circulação extracorpórea (SCEC) comparativamente à revascularização miocárdica com circulação extracorpórea (CEC). Para obter uma perspectiva melhor sobre essa importante questão, foi realizada uma metanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados, cotejando as duas técnicas. O objectivo do presente trabalho foi verificar qual a técnica aplicada na Cirurgia de Revascularização Miocárdica, CEC ou SCEC, que oferece melhores resultados, por metanálise de estudos randomizados publicados comparando CEC com SCEC. Realizou-se uma pesquisa bibliográfica informatizada nos motores de busca PubMed, Embase, B-on e Science Direct, durante o período de março de 2009 a janeiro de 2010. Os estudos abrangidos foram recuperados de acordo com critérios predeterminados. A revisão sistematizada de estudos clínicos randomizados foi executada, de forma a avaliar as diferenças entre ambas as técnicas de revascularização (SCEC versus CEC) na mortalidade e na morbidade. Os artigos selecionados não incluem pacientes de alto risco e avaliação longitudinal a longo prazo. A metanálise incidiu em nove ensaios clínicos randomizados, correspondendo a um total de 75.086 pacientes, e comparou a CEC à SCEC. No que diz respeito à mortalidade, observou-se redução de 18 por cento no risco de mortalidade cardiovascular (OR - 0,82; IC95 - 0,70 - 0,98; p = 0,03) e de 27 por cento no risco de ocorrência de AVC no pós-operatório (OR - 0,73; IC95 - 0,63 - 0,85; p = 0,0001), ambos a favor da técnica cirúrgica SCEC. Em relação à ocorrência de complicações associadas ao procedimento, não foram encontradas diferenças significativas entre ambas as técnicas cirúrgicas, particularmente no que se refere à ocorrência de complicações renais (OR - 0,97; IC95 - 0,84 - 1,14; p = 0,74) e de septicemia (OR - 0,98; IC95 - 0.64 - 1.51, p = 0,93, respectivamente). A revascularização miocárdica SCEC reduz significativamente a ocorrência de eventos cardiovasculares maiores (mortalidade e AVC), comparativamente à revascularização com CEC.

There are controversies about the possible benefits of offpump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) compared to on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (ONCABG). For a better perspective on this important issue, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, comparing the two techniques. The objective of this study was to verify which technique applied in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery, OPCABG or ONCABG, provides better results through a meta-analysis of published randomized trials comparing the two techniques. We carried out a computer-based literature search in PubMed, Embase, B-on and Science Direct from March 2009 to January 2010. The studies covered were recovered according to predetermined criteria. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials was performed in order to evaluate the differences between the two revascularization techniques (OPCABG versus ONCABG) regarding mortality and morbidity. Selected studies did not include patients at high risk and long-term longitudinal evaluations. The meta-analysis focused on nine randomized clinical trials, corresponding to a total of 75,086 patients, and compared OPCABG to ONCABG. Regarding mortality, a reduction of 18 percent in the risk of cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.82, 95 percentCI: 0.70 to 0.98, p = 0.03) and 27 percent in the risk of stroke postoperatively (OR: 0.73, 95 percentCI: 0.63 to 0.85, p = 0.0001) were observed, both in favor of OPCABG. Concerning the occurrence of complications associated with the procedure, no significant differences were found between the two surgical techniques, particularly with regard to the occurrence of kidney complications (OR: 0.97, 95 percentCI: 0.84-1.14, p = 0, 74) and sepsis (OR 0.98, 95 percentCI: 0.64-1.51, p = 0.93, respectively). Off-pump CABG significantly reduces the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (mortality and CVA) compared to on-pump CABG surgery.

Hay controversias en cuanto a los eventuales beneficios de la cirugía de revascularización miocárdica sin la técnica de circulación extracorpórea (SCEC) comparativamente a la revascularización miocárdica con circulación extracorpórea (CEC). Para obtener una perspectiva mejor sobre esa importante cuestión, fue realizada un metanálisis de ensayos clínicos randomizados, cotejando las dos técnicas. El objetivo de este estudio fue verificar cual es la técnica aplicada en la Cirugía de Revascularización Miocárdica, CEC o SCEC, que ofrece mejores resultados, por metanálisis de estudios randomizados publicados comparando CEC con SCEC. Se realizó una investigación bibliográfica informatizada en los motores de búsqueda PubMed, Embase, B-on y Science Direct, durante el período de marzo de 2009 a enero de 2010. Los estudios abarcados fueron recuperados de acuerdo con criterios predeterminados. La revisión sistematizada de estudios clínicos randomizados fue ejecutada, de forma de evaluar las diferencias entre ambas técnicas de revascularización (SCEC versus CEC) en la mortalidad y en la morbilidad. Los artículos seleccionados no incluyen pacientes de alto riesgo y evaluación longitudinal a largo plazo. El metanálisis incidió en nueve ensayos clínicos randomizados, correspondiendo a un total de 75.086 pacientes, y comparó la CEC a la SCEC. En lo que se refiere a la mortalidad, se observó reducción de 18 por ciento en el riesgo de mortalidad cardiovascular (OR - 0,82; IC95 - 0,70 - 0,98; p = 0,03) y de 27 por ciento en el riesgo de ocurrencia de ACV en el postoperatorio (OR - 0,73; IC95 - 0,63 - 0,85; p = 0,0001), ambos a favor de la técnica quirúrgica SCEC. En relación a la ocurrencia de complicaciones asociadas al procedimiento, no fueron encontradas diferencias significativas entre ambas técnicas quirúrgicas, particularmente en lo que se refiere a la ocurrencia de complicaciones renales (OR - 0,97; IC95 - 0,84 - 1,14; p = 0,74) y de septicemia (OR - 0,98; IC95 - 0.64 - 1.51, p = 0,93, respectivamente). La revascularización miocárdica SCEC reduce significativamente la ocurrencia de eventos cardiovasculares mayores (mortalidad y ACV), comparativamente a la revascularización con CEC. Puente de Arteria Coronaria sin Circulación Extracorpórea, Revascularización Miocárdica, Complicaciones Intraoperatorias, Metanálisis.

Estudo comparativo entre cirurgia de revascularização miocárdica com e sem circulação extracorpórea em mulheres / Comparative study between on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass graft in women

INTRODUÇÃO: Tem sido bem documentado que mulheres têm taxas de morbimortalidade mais altas que homens submetidos à cirurgia de revascularização miocárdica (CRM). Em vista desta evidência, é necessário saber se há benefício da CRM sem circulação extracorpórea (CEC) em comparação à CRM com CEC. OBJETIVOS: Comparar desfechos de morbimortalidade entre CRM sem CEC e CRM com CEC. MÉTODOS: Estudo retrospectivo. Nossa investigação analisa comparativamente o perfil clínico, 13 complicações relativas ao procedimento e mortalidade de uma população de 941 mulheres submetidas à CRM (549 sem CEC e 392 com CEC) em dois hospitais, no período de janeiro de 2000 a dezembro de 2005. RESULTADOS: A taxa de mortalidade em mulheres submetidas à CRM sem CEC é menor que mulheres submetidas à CRM com CEC, entretanto, a diferença não é estatisticamente significativa (3,1 por cento vs. 5,3 por cento; P=0,134). As taxas de complicações analisadas (choque hemorrágico, neurológicas, respiratórias, insuficiência renal aguda, síndrome da angústia respiratória do adulto, septicemia, pneumonia, fibrilação atrial) foram menores (diferença estatisticamente significativa) em mulheres do grupo CRM sem CEC em comparação ao grupo CRM com CEC, com exceção das complicações baixo débito cardíaco e infecção de ferida operatória. CONCLUSÕES: As evidências sugerem que CRM sem CEC pode beneficiar as mulheres em comparação com CRM com CEC, pois parece reduzir as taxas de morbimortalidade. Dez das 13 complicações investigadas demonstraram uma significativa vantagem das mulheres submetidas à CRM sem CEC em relação àquelas submetidas à CRM com CEC.

BACKGROUND: It has been well documented that women have higher morbidity and mortality rates than men following coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. In view of this evidence, it is necessary to know if there is benefit to off-pump CABG surgery in women in comparison to on-pump CABG. OBJECTIVES: Compare outcomes between off-pump CABG and on-pump CABG in women. METHODS: Retrospective study. Our investigation analyzes comparatively clinical profile, thirteen procedure complications and mortality of a population of 941 consecutive women undergoing CABG surgery (549 off-pump and 392 on-pump) at two hospitals for the period January 2000 to December 2005. RESULTS: Mortality rate for women undergoing off-pump CABG surgery is lower than for women undergoing on-pump surgery, however, not statistically significant (3.1 percent vs 5.3 percent; P=0.134). The complication rates analyzed (hemorrhagic shock, neurologic, respiratory, acute renal failure, adult respiratory distress syndrome, septicemia, pneumonia, atrial fibrillation) were lower (significant statistically difference) for women off-pump than women on-pump, with the exception of low cardiac output and wound infection. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that off-pump CABG surgery may be better for women than on-pump CABG surgery because it appears to reduce morbimortality rates. Ten of 13 complications investigated demonstrated an advantage for women undergoing off-pump surgery relative to those receiving on-pump surgery.

Cirugía de revascularización miocárdica de la arteria descendente anterior con arteria mamaria interna izquierda sin circulación extracorpórea: Experiencia en el largo plazo / Beating heart anterior descending coronary artery grafting with left internal mammary artery: A long term follow up experience

Background: In recent years the use of left internal mammary artery (LIMA) as a gran to anterior descending artery (DA) with the offpump technique has been associated with similar good long term results as with the on pump technique. Aún: To repon the results of LIMA to DA bypass grafting without extracorporeal circulation (EC) for isolated DA lesions. Patients and methods: Descriptive study of 80 patients subjected to coronary surgery between 1999 and 2007. Results: Mean age ofpatients was 63 + 10 years and 60 were male. There was no operative mortality or stroke. One patient with a myocardial infarction required a reoperation. Actuarial survival was 98% at 97 months. Conclusions: In this group ofpatients the use ofLIMA as a coronary bypass gran to DA with the off pump technique is a safe surgical procedure, providing a prolonged cardiac event free survival (mortality, angina, myocardial infarction, and need for a new coronary procedure).

Revascularização híbrida do miocárdio: uma alternativa para reduzir o tempo de perfusão / Hybrid CABG: an alternative for perfusion time decrease

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a possibilidade da redução do tempo de circulação extracorpórea (CEC) e das complicações relacionadas a esta variável na revascularização do miocárdio (RM), utilizando o método híbrido como alternativa. MÉTODOS: Noventa pacientes foram analisados, retrospectivamente, entre março/2000 e agosto/2006. Todos foram revascularizados com três ou mais enxertos e divididos em doisgrupos: híbrido - 45 pacientes que foram operados pela técnica híbrida; total - 45 pacientes operados com CEC. RESULTADOS: No grupo híbrido, o tempo de CEC variou de 20 a 81 minutos e, no grupo total, de 60 a 210 minutos (p<0,001). O tempo de pinçamento aórtico variou de 7 a 70 minutos no primeiro grupo e de 34 a 100 minutos (p<0,001) no segundo grupo. Foi encontrada diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os grupos em relação à incidência de fibrilação atrial e à disfunção renal. CONCLUSÃO: Utilizando-se a técnica híbrida é possível reduzir o tempo de CEC e a incidência de algumas complicações pós-operatórias. Provavelmente, esta redução nas incidências de fibrilação atrial e disfunção renal podem ser explicadas por uma redução na resposta da inflamatória conseqüente a um tempo de CEC menor.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the decrease of CPB time and its related complications in CABG using a hybrid alternative method. METHODS: Ninety patients were retrospectively analyzed between March 2000 and August 2006. All were treated with three or more grafts and divided into two groups: Group 1 was the hybrid group - 45 patients who had been operated by the hybrid technique; Group 2 was the total group - 45 patients operated in on-pump. RESULTS: In the hybrid group, the CPB time varied from 20 min. to 81 min. In the total group, the CPB time varied from 60 min. to 210 min. (p<0.001). The aorta cross-clamping time varied in the first group from 7 min. to 70 min. In Group 2, from 34 to 100 min. (p<0.001). A statistically significant difference was found between these two groups in relation to the occurrence of postoperative atrium fibrillation and renal dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Using the hybrid technique it is possible to reduce the CPB time, as well as the occurrence of some postoperative complications. Probably, this decreasing in atrial fibrillation and renal dysfunction incidences could be explained due to a less significant inflammatory activation, which is a consequence of a shorter CPB time.

Early outcome after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: effect on mortality and stroke / Resultado inicial após revascularização miocárdica: efeito na mortalidade e no acidente cerebrovascular

OBJECTIVE: One of the major and devastating complications of the coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the stroke. Avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) may reduce this neurological complication. In the past years there was an increased interest in the off-pump coronary artery grafting (OPCAB). The benefit of this method of revascularization in term of stroke and mortality is controversially discussed. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of collected data from 252 patients were operated without cardiopulmonary bypass out of 1516 CABG procedures from January 2004 through May 2006. The mean age of the patient population was 70±11years, within a range of 27-88 years. Forty-eight (19 percent) patients were older than 80 years and there were 172 (69 percent) males. Mean graft per patient was 1.78±0.79. The internal mammary artery (IMA) graft was used in 95 percent of the patients. For eight (3.17 percent) patients this was the second procedure. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was 3.17 percent; Mean EuroSCORE in these patients was 10.36±6.67. No neurological complications occurred, six (2.38 percent) patients had temporary psycho syndrome. Postoperative myocardial infarction occurred in three (1.19 percent) patients. Two patients required rethoracotomy as a result of bleeding. Thirty-eight (15 percent) patients needed postoperative therapy for atrial fibrillation. CONCLUSION: CABG with OPCAB technique has the benefit of low mortality and morbidity in terms of stroke. The advantages of this technique depends on the patient's general condition at the time of the operation, the sufficiency of pump function and coronary morphology, as well as on the surgeon's experience.

OBJETIVO: Uma das principais e devastadoras complicações da revascularização do miocárdio é o acidente cerebrovascular. Evitar a circulação extracorpórea (CEC) pode reduzir essa complicação neurológica. No passado, houve um interesse crescente na cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio sem circulação extracorpórea. O benefício deste método de revascularização com relação ao acidente cerebrovascular e à mortalidade ainda é discutido de forma controversa. MÉTODOS: Uma análise retrospectiva dos dados coletados de 1.516 pacientes submetidos à cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio, de janeiro de 2004 a maio de 2006, dos quais 252 pacientes que foram operados sem circulação extracorpórea. A média de idade da população da amostra foi de 70±11 anos, variando de 27 a 88 anos. Quarenta e oito pacientes (19 por cento) tinham mais de 80 anos e 172 pacientes (69 por cento) eram homens. O número médio de transplante por paciente foi de 1,78±0,79. A artéria torácica interna (ATI) foi usada em 95 por cento dos pacientes, enquanto que para oito pacientes a ATI foi o segunda procedimento. RESULTADOS: A mortalidade hospitalar foi de 3,17 por cento; o EuroScore médio nesses pacientes foi de 10,36±6,67. Não ocorreram complicações neurológicas, porém, seis pacientes (2,38 por cento) tiveram psicossíndrome temporária. Infarto do miocárdio ocorreu em três pacientes (1,19 por cento) após a cirurgia. Dois pacientes precisaram fazer uma nova toracotomia por motivo de sangramento e 38 (15 por cento) de tratamento para fibrilação atrial após a cirurgia. CONCLUSÃO: A cirurgia de revascularização do miocárdio sem circulação extracorpórea apresenta o benefício da baixa mortalidade e morbidade com relação ao acidente cerebrovascular. As vantagens dessa técnica dependem da condição geral do paciente na época da cirurgia, da suficiência da função da bomba e da morfologia coronária, bem como da experiência do cirurgião.