• Users Online: 181
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 174-180

Twelve months outcome of drug-eluting stenting versus off-pump bypass surgery for proximal left anterior descending coronary artery lesion in ischemic cardiomyopathy


1 Department of Cardiology, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt
2 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
3 Department of Anesthesiology, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

Date of Submission10-Jul-2020
Date of Decision14-Jul-2020
Date of Acceptance21-Sep-2020
Date of Web Publication21-Jan-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Yasser Gaber Metwally
Department of Cardiology, Zagazig University, Zagazig
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JICC.JICC_51_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: The precise benefit/risk ratio of either procedure in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy remains less clear. Objectives: This study is aimed to assess the 12 months outcome of drug-eluting stent (DES) versus off-pump CABG (OPCAB) for proximal left anterior descending lesions in ischemic cardiomyopathy. Patients and Methods: A total of 70 patients diagnosed with ischemic cardiomyopathy with ejection fraction <35% referred for revascularization were assigned to either stenting or surgery. The primary endpoint was (in stent restenosis [ISR]/graft occlusion) rates; the secondary endpoint was MACE at 12 months of follow-up. Results: Out of 70 patients enrolled; 71.4% were assigned to DES, while 28.6% were assigned to OPCAB; the mean the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery score for stent group was 17.5 ± 0.96, while the mean Euro-score II for the surgery group was 3 ± 0.86. The ISR/graft occlusion rates; angina; and target vessel revascularization were significantly higher among the stenting group (30% vs. 5%; P = 0.028); (4% vs. 25%; P = 0.017) and (22% vs. 0%, P = 0.028), respectively, while late transient ischemic attack/stroke and length of hospital stay were significantly higher among the surgery group (2% vs. 20%; P = 0.021) and (2 ± 0.5 days vs. 7.2 ± 0.5, P < 0.001), respectively; similar survival rates among the two groups. The relative risk of ISR/graft occlusion is six times more among the stent group compared to the surgery group (P = 0.028). Conclusion: Similar survival rates at 12 months of follow-up among the two groups; stent carries more risk of ISR; repeat revascularization while surgery carries more risk of late stroke.

Keywords: Cardiomyopathy, ischemic, off-pump bypass, stenting


How to cite this article:
Metwally YG, Mahmoud AF, Taha WS. Twelve months outcome of drug-eluting stenting versus off-pump bypass surgery for proximal left anterior descending coronary artery lesion in ischemic cardiomyopathy. J Indian coll cardiol 2020;10:174-80

How to cite this URL:
Metwally YG, Mahmoud AF, Taha WS. Twelve months outcome of drug-eluting stenting versus off-pump bypass surgery for proximal left anterior descending coronary artery lesion in ischemic cardiomyopathy. J Indian coll cardiol [serial online] 2020 [cited 2022 Dec 7];10:174-80. Available from: https://www.joicc.org/text.asp?2020/10/4/174/307617




  Introduction Top


Since 1968, when Dr. George Green[1] from the Saint Luke's Hospital in New York City had performed the first left internal thorathic artery to left anterior descending (LAD) anastomosis that has become the absolute gold standard of the coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Since that date, the CABG surgery as it is known today was born.[2]

Nine years thereafter, the cardiologists have proceeded toward interventional catheter-based therapy. Already in 1977 in Zürich, Andreas Gruntzig first performed the first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a trans luminal balloon angioplasty to dilate a stenosis in the LAD,[3] then it took <10 years before metallic stents could be successfully designed and inserted into the coronary arteries to prevent arterial recoil and restenosis with the first clinical data reported by Ulrich Sigwart in Switzerland.[4]

The first generation of drug-eluting stents (DES) made out of stainless steel and delivering sirolimus (rapamycin) or paclitaxel soon yielded to the second generation of stent materials (e.g., cobalt-chromium) with decreased strut thickness reducing mechanical risk factors of incomplete stent apposition but delivering similar drugs (paclitaxel or sirolimus-derived zotarolimus and everolimus).[5]

However, So far, American guideline-driven recommendations in the context of heart failure ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS) 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Revascularization to improve survival compared with medical therapy in the anatomic setting of left ventricular dysfunction, recommend CABG for patients with ejection fraction (EF) <35% without significant left main coronary artery disease (CAD) as a class IIb with insuffient data for PCI.[6]

This had stimulated us to further investigate those with ischemic cardiomyopathy with EF % <35% referred for revascularization by either procedure. Hence, we aimed to assess the 12 months outcome of DES versus off-pump CABG (OPCAB) for proximal LAD Lesions in ischemic cardiomyopathy.


  Patients and Methods Top


Study population

This study was carried out in the Departments of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University as well as Zagazig University. The study was conducted from January 2018 to May 2020.

The study included 70 Consecutive patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (EF% <35%) with proximal significant lesion (>50%) at LAD artery planned for revascularization were enrolled in this study.

Patients were eligible if documented viable myocardium (either by dobutamine stress or by thallium) study are available. Additional surgical procedures during the same operation (e.g. valve surgery, aneurysmectomy, carotid surgery, etc.), left main disease; cardiogenic shock, poorly controlled atrial fibrillation, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia, If death occurred in the operating room, end-stage renal disease or with a contraindication to antiplatelet therapy were exclusion criteria. The choice of revascularization modality (PCI versus CABG) was left to the physician's as well as to the patients' discretion rather than randomization.

The patients were assigned into two groups according to the revascularization modality done either PCI (DES group; n = 50) or (surgical group; n = 20).

The study complied with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 statement[7] and the declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the independent medical ethics committee twente and the institutional review board of the participating centers. All patients gave written informed consent.

Invasive coronary angiography (ICA, QCA) as a reference standard.[8] The Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score was calculated where the cut-off value of ≤22; between 23 and 32 and ≥33 were used to identify low-, intermediate-, and high-risk, respectively, for PCI.[9] Furthermore, Euro score II was calculated where the cut-off value of 6% was used to identify high risk for surgery.[10]

For the PCI arm, the coronary intervention was done using a second-generation drug-eluting stent (either EES or PES); the detailed description of the devices are provided else-where: (http://www.abbotvascular.com/docs/coronaryintervention/xience/epg.xience.pdf) and (www.boston scientific.com, www.stent.com), respectively.

The interventional techniques were done according to the standard guidelines.[11] For the surgery arm; CABG surgery was done. They were initially planned for OPCAB, however, the decision of conversion from off-pump to on-pump (ONCAB) intraoperatively was left to the surgeon's discretion. Either technique was carried out according to the internationally established standards using LIMA to LAD. The off-pump surgery was performed by the use of the “Octopus” tissue stabilizer described in detail anywhere.[12]

Further medical management was provided according to the guidelines and the physician's judgment.[13] However, the use of aspirin was continued indefinitely while the dual antiplatelet use was mandatory for the stent arm up to 12 months.

Clinical endpoints were defined as proposed by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC), including the addendum on myocardial infarction (MI).[13],[14],[15]

Death was regarded as cardiac unless an un-equivocal noncardiac cause could be established. MI was defined by creatinine kinase concentration of more than double the upper limits of normal with raised cardiac biomarkers.[16]

A target vessel-related MI is defined as an MI related to the vascular territory of the previously treated target. Further MI classification could be based on laboratory, ECG, angiographic or clinical data.[13],[16]

Revascularization procedures were considered as clinically indicated (i.e. there was sufficient objective evidence of clinically significant lesion, if the angiographic diameter stenosis of the then treated lesion was 50% or more in the presence of ischemic signs or symptoms, or if the diameter stenosis was 70% or more irrespective of ischemic signs or symptoms.[16]

Stent thrombosis was proposed by the ARC.[17] A final residual percent diameter stenosis of <30% with TIMI flow III (using the assigned device only) was defined as procedural success. In-stent restenosis was defined as in-stent luminal diameter narrowing of at least 50%.

12 months clinical follow-up data were obtained through outpatient department visits or if not available; by the telephone follow-up using medical questionnaire form.

Endpoints

The primary endpoint was (in stent restenosis [ISR]/graft occlusion) rates; the secondary endpoint was MACE at 12 months follow-up.

Statistical analysis

The continuous variables were expressed in mean ± standard deviation , while discrete variables were expressed in percentage. The differences in continuous variables were checked for statistical significance by t-test as appropriate, the differences in the discrete variables were checked for statistical significance by Chi-square test. The association between ISR/graft occlusion versus revascularization modalities was done using Fisher's exact test.

P < 0.05 was considered significant. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS.11 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).


  Results Top


The baseline, demographic and clinical characteristics of our study population are shown in [Table 1]. No statistically significant differences in the frequency of the age, gender, HTN, dyslipidemia, smoking, previous stroke, diabetes mellitus, previous MI, significant MR, the mean body mass index, waist circumference or the mean EF% between the two groups.
Table 1: The baseline, demographic and clinical characteristics of the study groups

Click here to view


Angiographic and procedural variables are shown in [Table 2]. No statistically significant differences in the: number of more than one vessel disease, reference vessel diameter, %DS before revascularization procedures, lesion length, % of complex lesion (Class B2/C), SYNTAX score. On the other hand there was a significantly higher Euro score II, shorter mean time to revascularization among the DES group.
Table 2: Angiographic and procedural variables of the study groups

Click here to view


Clinical outcomes at 12 months of follow-up are shown in [Table 3]. No statistically significant difference in the frequency of deaths (e.g., Similar survival rates among the two groups); target vessel-related MI, procedure success rate between the two groups. On the other hand; there were significantly higher rate of: ISR/graft occlusion (30% vs. 5%; P = 0.028); frequency of angina after revascularization (4% vs. 25%, P = 0.017) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (22% vs. 0%, P = 0.028) among the stenting group, (as shown in [Figure 1]) while significantly higher rates of late transient ischemic attack (TIA) stroke (2% vs. 20%, P = 0.021) (as shown in [Figure 2]), and length of hospital stay (2 ± 0.5 days vs. 7.2 ± 0.5, P < 0.001) among the surgery group.
Figure 1: Frequancy of TVR at 12 month follow up among the study groups. *P < 0.05 significant when comparing G1 to G2

Click here to view
Figure 2: Frequancy of TIA/stroke after revascularization at 12 month follow up. *P < 0.05 significant when comparing G1 to G2

Click here to view
Table 3: Postprocedural outcome of the study groups

Click here to view


The association between the ISR/graft occlusion and the revascularization modalities are shown in [Table 3] showed that; the relative risk (RR) of ISR/graft occlusion is six times more among the stent group compared to the surgery group (RR = 6; 95% confidence interval is 0.85–42.5), (P = 0.028).


  Discussion Top


The intension to treat approach for OPCAB in most cases with isolated CAD and low EF% is still an exceptional concept.[18] The majority of publications about revascularization in patients with low EF% deal with ONCAB as the gold standard[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24] with 5-year survival rates of about 71% (while only 50% with the medical treatment.

The relative efficacy of PCI versus surgical revascularization in HF as well as the exact role of OPCAB in patients with low EF%, had been already discussed.[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25]

Pusca and Puskas[25] compared PCI and surgical revascularization in patients with heart failure and favored an operation (no further differentiation in OPCAB or ONCAP), with exception of specific situation as status after several cardiac operations or sever co-morbidities preventing major surgery.

The results of our study demonstrated lower TVR rates among the surgery group. The lower TVR rates could be explained in turn by lower graft occlusion rates among the surgery group. High graft patency rates of IMA to LAD are well known, especially on long-term follow-up basis[26] although that our study follow-up time was too short to demonstrate.

Our results also surprisingly demonstrated incident angina among the surgery group. This could be explained by the surgical procedure modality chosen at our study protocol for the surgery arm. OPCAB is documented to be associated with less effective revascularization of the posterior and lateral wall than the anterior wall (LAD territory).[27]

A major concern and argument against OPCAB,[28],[29],[30] although may be considered safer than ONCAB in patients with an enlarged heart and associated with low EF.[31]

Our results demonstrated also higher rates of late TIA/stroke among the surgery group. The interpretation of a higher incidence of stroke despite the use of OPCAB variety of CABG needs certain precautions: first the onset of stroke was after the hospital discharge in 20% of case, for example, not immediately noted postoperatively. Second, most cases of surgery arm (20%) were not maintained the dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) during the 12 months follow up, thus; it seems that; the pathophysiology of stroke among the surgery arm of our study, not directly related to the surgical procedure itself. CABG is a known risk factor for stroke because of large atherosclerotic emboli detached by surgical manipulation of the aorta in cases of moderate-to-severe proximal aortic atherosclerosis,[32] for example, in patients with a high atherosclerotic burden. Observational trials have suggested that, by avoiding the deleterious effects of cardiac bypass, OPCAB may extensively reduce the mortality and morbidity rates when compared to the conventional CABG[33] and in particular in high-risk patients.[34]

Standard OPCAB, however, still requires application of a side biting clamp to complete the proximal anastomosis, thus increasing the risk of disclosing fragile material from the aortic intimal wall. It has been demonstrated that in cases of the diffusely diseased aorta, the off-pump procedures performed the so-called “no-touch” or with the use of proximal anastomotic devices allow the avoidance of any type of clamping and may reduce the risk of postoperative neurologic events and cognitive functional impairment.[35]

However, so far, data available were inconclusive to provide a definite conclusion regarding the above-mentioned two techniques because of the small sample size.[35]

Serruys et al.[36] had found that; compared to PCI, patients of the CABG arm were less likely to receive secondary preventive treatment such as DAPT and statin. This may explain why 50% of the strokes in the CABG arm had occurred after 30 days of the operation in his study.

Previous randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the value of PCI versus CABG in patients with low EF% (<35%).[37]

The AWESOME trial[37] was the only completed randomized trial conducted on 94 patients with EF <35%, ended after 3 years, showed a survival of 69% for PCI and 72% after CABG surgery (the overall use of stent in the PCI arm was only 54%). In the large Canadian study (APPROACH study), the 1-year survival rate for CABG including low EF patient using territorial registry; was 91.4% for the surgery arm for patients with EF <30%.[38]

OPCAB versus on-OPCAB has been investigated by Gorki et al.[39] who conducted a study on 346 patients with EF <30% with isolated OPCAB, were compared with a propensity-matched historical group operated On pump (ONCAB); the 30-day survival rate was significantly better among the OPCAB arm while the in-hospital MACE all were nonsignificant (stroke, MI, renal failure, and sepsis) except the length of hospital stay that was significantly shorter among the OPCAB arm.

The findings of this study demonstrated similar survival rates with the shorter hospital stay. The ROOBy trial[40] showed less patency and less effective revascularization with a significantly higher adverse event rates with the OPCAB arm with no significant difference in the neuro-psychological outcome between the two groups. Charlesworth et al.[41] suggested NNECDSG stroke risk scores to identify those who are at high risk for postoperative stroke.

The finding of less patency and less effective revascularization noted at the ROOBy trial; come consistent with the incident angina found among the surgery group of this study. On the other hand, there were no major differences between the outcome of both techniques that were found in the SMART trial.[33]

Eefting et al.[42] reported that stenting was more cost-effective than off-pump surgery while maintaining comparable cardiac outcomes in terms of (death, stroke, MI, repeat revascularization, and quality of life) at 1-year follow-up.

Study limitations

First, our sample size is relatively small to detect small differences in binary event rates; larger scaled prospective multicentred randomized trials are needed. Second, despite the study was not randomized could have introduced a sampling bias. However, there was no major difference that appeared in the demographic or other variables that could seriously affect our main results, still, we suggest that further prospective multicenter (RCT) to confirm our results. Third, longer term follow-up >1 year not studied.


  Conclusion Top


Similar survival rates at 12 months of follow-up among the two groups; stent carries more risk of ISR; repeat revascularization while surgery carries more risk of stroke.

Recommendations

Recruiting the NNECDSG stroke risk scores to identify those who are at high risk for postoperative stroke; so may be considered either: candidates for neuroprotection during surgery (using off-pump surgery, aorta no-touch strategy, intraoperative epi aortic ultrasound examination of the ascending aorta); or who could be regarded as candidates for percutaneous coronary revascularization and possibly routine postoperative DAPT and statin therapy.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Green GE, Stertzer SH, Reppert EH. Coronary arterial bypass grafts. Ann Thoracic Surg 1968;5:443-50.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Melly L, Torregrossa G, Lee T, Jansens JL, Puskas JD. Fifty years of coronary artery bypass grafting. Journal of thoracic disease 2018;10(3):1960  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Gruntzig A. Transluminal dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis. Lancet 1978;1:263.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Sigwart U, Puel J, Mirkovitch V, Joffre F, Kappenberger L. Intravascular stents to prevent occlusion and restenosis after transluminal angioplasty. N Engl J Med 1987;316:701-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Simard T, Hibbert B, Ramirez FD, Froeschl M, Chen YX, O'Brien ER. The evolution of coronary stents: A brief review. Can J Cardiol 2014;30:35-45.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 2011;124:2574-609.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Iskandar A, Limone B, Parker MW, Perugini A, Kim H, Jones C, et al. Gender differences in the diagnostic accuracy of SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging: A bivariate meta-analysis. J Nucl Cardiol 2013;20:53-63.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP, Morice MC, Colombo A, Dawkins K, et al. The SYNTAX Score: An angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention 2005;1:219-27.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Nashef SA, Roques F, Sharples LD, Nilsson J, Smith C, Goldstone AR, et al. EuroSCORE II. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;41:734-44.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Banning AP, Baumbach A, Blackman D, Curzen N, Devadathan S, Fraser D, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in the UK: recommendations for good practice 2015. Heart 2015;101 Suppl 3:1-3.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Jansen EW, Borst C, Lahpor JR, Gründeman PF, Eefting FD, Nierich A, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass using the octopus method: Results in the first one hundred patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998;116:60-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
von Birgelen C, Basalus MW, Tandjung K, van Houwelingen KG, Stoel MG, Louwerenburg JH, et al. A randomized controlled trial in second-generation zotarolimus-eluting Resolute stents versus everolimus-eluting Xience V stents in real-world patients: the TWENTE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:1350-61.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, Boam A, Cohen DJ, van Es GA, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: A case for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007;115:2344-51.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Camenzind E, Wijns W, Mauri L, Kurowski V, Parikh K, Gao R, et al. Stent thrombosis and major clinical events at 3 years after zotarolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting coronary stent implantation: A randomised, multicentre, open-label, controlled trial. The Lancet 2012;380(9851):1396-1405.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Garg S, Vranckx P, De Bruyne B, Morice MC, et al. 5-year clinical outcomes of the ARTS II (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study II) of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with multivessel de novo coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:1093-101.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Lüscher TF, Steffel J, Eberli FR, Joner M, Nakazawa G, Tanner FC, et al. Drug-eluting stent and coronary thrombosis: Biological mechanisms and clinical implications. Circulation 2007;115:1051-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Gorki H, Patel NC, Balacumaraswami L, Jennings J, Goksedef D, Subramanian VA. Long-term survival after minimal invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery in patients with low ejection fraction. Innovations (Phila) 2010;5:400-6.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Alderman EL, Fisher LD, Litwin P, Kaiser GC, Myers WO, Maynard C, et al. Results of coronary artery surgery in patients with poor left ventricular function (CASS). Circulation 1983;68:785-95.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Milano CA, White WD, Smith LR, Jones RH, Lowe JE, Smith PK, et al. Coronary artery bypass in patients with severely depressed ventricular function. Ann Thorac Surg 1993;56:487-93.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Trachiotis GD, Weintraub WS, Johnston TS, Jones EL, Guyton RA, Craver JM. Coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with advanced left ventricular dysfunction. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66(5):1632-9.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Kaul TK, Agnihotri AK, Fields BL, Riggins LS, Wyatt DA, Jones CR. Coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with an ejection fraction of twenty percent or less. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996;111:1001-12.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Mickleborough LL, Maruyama H, Takagi Y, Mohamed S, Sun Z, Ebisuzaki L. Results of revascularization in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation 1995;92(9):73-9. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.92.9.73. PMID: 7586465.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Rastan AJ, Walther T, Falk V, Lehmann S, Kempfert J, Mohr FW. Coronary artery bypass grafting on the beating heart in high-risk patients. Herz 2007;32:483-90.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Pusca SV, Puskas JD. Revascularization in heart failure: Coronary bypass or percutaneous coronary intervention? Heart Failure Clin 2007;3:211-28.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Goldman S, Zadina K, Moritz T, Ovitt T, Sethi G, Copeland JG, et al. Long-term patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary artery grafts after coronary artery bypass surgery: Results from a department of veterans affairs cooperative study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:2149-56.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Arom KV, Flavin TF, Emery RW, Kshettry VR, Janey PA, Petersen RJ. Safety and efficacy of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69:704-10.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Yeatman M, Caputo M, Ascione R, Ciulli F, Angelini GD. Off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery for critical left main stem disease: safety, efficacy and outcome. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2001;19(3):239-44. doi: 10.1016/s1010-7940(01)00572-3. PMID: 11251259.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Chamberlain MH, Ascione R, Reeves BC, Angelini GD. Evaluation of the effectiveness of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in high-risk patients: an observational study. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:1866-73.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Thomas GN, Martinez EC, Woitek F, Emmert MY, Sakaguchi H, Muecke S, et al. Off-pump coronary bypass grafting is safe and efficient in patients with left main disease and higher euro score. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009;36(4):616-20. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.04.029. Epub 2009 Jun 11. PMID: 19523845.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Li S, Gong W, Qi Q, Yuan Z, Chen A, Liu J, et al. Outcomes of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with severely dilated left ventricle. Ann Transl Med 2016;4:340.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Roach GW, Kanchuger M, Mangano CM, Newman M, Nussmeier N, Wolman R, et al. Adverse cerebral outcomes after coronary bypass surgery. Multicenter study of perioperative ischemia research group and the ischemia research and education foundation investigators. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1857-63.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Puskas JD, Kilgo PD, Lattouf OM, Thourani VH, Cooper WA, Vassiliades TA, et al. Off-pump coronary bypass provides reduced mortality and morbidity and equivalent 10-year survival. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;86:1139-46.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Puskas JD, Thourani VH, Kilgo P, Cooper W, Vassiliades T, Vega JD, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass disproportionately benefits high-risk patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88:1142-7.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Szwed K, Pawliszak W, Anisimowicz L, Buciński A, Borkowska A. Short-term outcome of attention and executive functions from aorta no-touch and traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. World J Biol Psychiatry 2014;15(5):397-403. doi: 10.3109/15622975.2013.824611. Epub 2013 Aug 29. PMID: 23984711.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Colombo A, Holmes DR, Mack MJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009;360:961-72.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Sedlis SP, Ramanathan KB, Morrison DA, Sethi G, Sacks J, Henderson W, et al. Outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass grafting for patients with low left ventricular ejection fractions, unstable angina pectoris, and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass (the AWESOME Randomized Trial and Registry). Am J Cardiol 2004;94:118-20.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Appoo J, Norris C, Merali S, Graham MM, Koshal A, Knudtson ML, et al. Long-term outcome of isolated coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation 2004;110(11):3-7. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000138345.69540.ed. PMID: 15364831.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Gorki H, Patel NC, Panagopoulos G, Jennings J, Balacumaraswami L, Plestis K, et al. Off-pump coronary bypass surgery in patients with low ejection fraction: Is there a long-term survival advantage? Innovations (Phila) 2010;5:33-41.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Shroyer AL, Grover FL, Hattler B, Collins JF, McDonald GO, Kozora E, et al. Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) Study Group. On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 2009;361(19):1827-37. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0902905. PMID: 19890125.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Charlesworth DC, Likosky DS, Marrin CA, Maloney CT, Quinton HB, Morton JR, et al. Development and validation of a prediction model for strokes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;76:436-43.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Eefting F, Nathoe H, van Dijk D, Jansen E, Lahpor J, Stella P, et al. Randomized comparison between stenting and off-pump bypass surgery in patients referred for angioplasty. Circulation 2003;108:2870-6.  Back to cited text no. 42
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Patients and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed948    
    Printed42    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded63    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal