Short-term outcomes of on- vs off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Does the manipulation of the off-pump CABG (OPCAB) in patient with depressed left ventricular function is better than on-pump CABG (ONCAB) approach in in-hospital mortality and morbidities? Here we undertook a meta-analysis of the best evidence available on the comparison of primary and second clinical outcomes of the off-pump and on-pump CABG. DESIGN: Systematic literature reviewer and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science and Cochrane Center Registry of Controlled Trials were searched the studies which comparing the use of the off-pump CABG(OPCAB) and on-pump CABG (ONCAB) for patients with LVD during January 1990.1 to January 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All observation studies and randomized controlled trials comparing on-pump and off-pump as main technique for multi-vessel coronary artery disease (defined as severe stenosis (>70%) in at least 2 major diseased coronary arteries) with left ventricular dysfunction(defined as ejection fraction (EF) 40% or less) were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Authors will screen and select the studies extract the following data, first author, year of publication, trial characters, study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, graft type, clinical outcome, assess the risk of bias and heterogeneity. Study-specific estimates will pool through the modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the quality of study and while leave-one-out analysis will be used to detect the impact of individual studies on the robustness of outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 987 screened articles, a total of 16 studies (32,354 patients) were included. A significant relationship between patient risk profile and benefits from OPCAB was found in terms of the 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.97; P = 0.02), stroke (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.86; P = 0.00), myocardial infarction (MI) (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96; P = 0.02), renal failure (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93; P = 0.01), pulmonary complication (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.90; P = 0.01), infection (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49-0.91; P = 0.00),postoperative transfusion (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.84; P = 0.02) and reoperation for bleeding (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75; P = 0.00). There was no significant difference in atrial fibrillation (AF) (OR, 0.96;95%; CI, 0.78-1.41; P = 0.56) and neurological dysfunction (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.49-1.57; P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the on-pump CABG with LVD, using the off-pump CABG is a better choice for patients with lower mortality, stroke, MI, RF, pulmonary complication, infection, postoperative transfusion and reoperation for bleeding. Further randomized studies are warranted to corroborate these observational data.

Numerical analysis of aortic hemodynamics under the support of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and intra-aortic balloon pump.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A gap still exists in the hemodynamic effect of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), and VA-ECMO plus IABP on the blood perfusion of the coronary artery, brain, and lower limb; the relation between heart flow and ECMO flow; and the wall stress of vessels. METHODS: A finite-element model of the aorta, ECMO, and IABP was proposed to calculate the mechanical response via fluid-structure interaction. Heart failure (HF), IABP, ECMO, and ECMO plus IABP were utilized to study the effect of support models. RESULTS: For the pressure curve, VA-ECMO weakened the dicrotic notch of pressure compared with HF and the pulsatile index (0.494 vs. 0.706 vs. 0.471 vs. 0.613). IABP, ECMO, and ECMO plus IABP increased the perfusion of the coronary, brain, and renal artery compared with HF. However, ECMO and ECMO plus IABP clearly reduced the blood flow of the left arteria femoralis compared to that of the right arteria femoralis (ECMO: 194.04 vs. 730.80 mL/min; ECMO plus IABP: 342.15 vs. 947.22 mL/min). In addition, the flow of ECMO accessed the renal artery more than the left ventricular flow. Greater ventricular flow perfused to the renal artery at a diastolic period for ECMO plus IABP, especially at the time points of 2.192 s and 2.304 s. Compared to the velocity distribution with ECMO, the flow of the right arteria femoralis was increased in the process of IABP-on. According to these four cases, the stress of the vascular wall was increased for ECMO support at the systolic period. The peak wall stress of ECMO is increased by 20% at 1.68 s. CONCLUSIONS: ECMO plus IABP is more conducive to the blood supply than other cases from the result of numerical simulation. The location of blood intersection was generated in the region of the renal artery, which is estimated carefully.