![\"Top](\"http:\/\/drpavankumar.in\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Top-Cardiac-Surgeon-in-India.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Latest article published in New England Journal of Medicine August 2017, about coronary bypass surgery done on pump (standard ) & off pump ( beating heart ) in this article of 5 year follow up in randomised trial shows that on pump ( STD ) CABG has better out come than beating heart off pump surgery in terms of mortality \/ revascularisation & repeat interventions. Result is similar to Syntex trial study.
\nDr. Pavan Kumar<\/p>\n
ROOBY-FS Trial : Off-Pump CABG Inferior at 5 Years
\nNEW YORK \u2014 Off-pump CABG showed no advantage across all 5-year clinical outcomes and a 3.3% significantly higher absolute risk of all-cause death in the ROOBY-Follow-up Study (ROOBY-FS).
\nIn contrast, the recent 5-year findings of the international CORONARY trial showed similar outcomes with the more technically demanding off-pump approach and on-pump CABG.<\/p>\n
“Our study, although some might criticize it compared with the others because there’s not quite the surgical experience, the fact of the matter is it probably reflects better the current surgical experience of North America in terms of relevance,” senior ROOBY-FS author Dr Frederick Grover (University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora) said in an interview.<\/p>\n
Off-pump CABG was touted in the 1990s as a way to prevent the damaging neurocognitive effects of cardiopulmonary bypass. But its use has fallen in the US from 23% in 2002 to 13% in 2016, he noted.<\/p>\n
The results support the conclusion that “off-pump CABG does not offer any substantial advantages over on-pump CABG except possibly in unusual situations such as, for example, in patients with an extensively calcified (porecelain) aorta, in whom the off-pump technique may result in less manipulation of the aorta, potentially decreasing the risk of aortic emboli or stroke,” the authors write in the August 17, 2017 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
\nLiver-transplant patients and frail elderly patients with a high comorbidity burden may also benefit from off-pump CABG, Grover said asked to comment on the results, lead CORONARY author Dr Andr\u00e9 Lamy (McMaster University, Hamilton, ON) said, “I’m not surprised because the 1-year results of ROOBY show a difference in the primary outcomes, but ROOBY is a different animal on its own.”<\/p>\n
This prompted the CORONARY trial, which required surgeons to have more than 2 years of experience with off-pump CABG and to have completed more than 100 cases; and the German Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Elderly Patients (GOPCABE) trial, where the median experience was 322 off-pump surgeries.
\nDespite these differences in surgical volume, CORONARY and GOPCABE showed no benefit of an off-pump approach for any of their primary 30-day or 1-year outcomes.<\/p>\n
At 1 year in ROOBY, there was a trend toward better survival in the on-pump group and a significantly higher composite rate of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or any repeat revascularization procedure in the off-pump group.<\/p>\n
All three trials showed off-pump CABG results in less complete revascularization, which the ROOBY-FS authors note “may be a mechanism for the shorter survival that has been observed among patients who have undergone an off-pump procedure.”<\/p>\n
At 5 years, they report the rate of death was significantly higher in the off-pump group at 15.2% vs 11.9% in the on-pump group (relative risk [RR] 1.28; P=0.02).<\/p>\n
The co\u2013primary composite end point of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, or repeat revascularization was also significantly higher in the off-pump group (31.0% vs 27.1%; RR 1.14; P=0.046). The absolute difference was 3.9% Lamy said their finding in diabetic patients needs to be confirmed and that additional results are expected at the end of the year or early next year from GOPCABE.<\/p>\n
Calls to abandon off-pump CABG are premature, however, although Lamy said his practice has changed over the last 10 years and “I’m doing more on-pump these day In an accompanying editorial,[2] Dr Eugene Blackstone (Cleveland Clinic, OH) and Dr Joseph Sabik III (University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, OH) write: “Although the controversy about on-pump vs off-pump CABG is likely to continue, it may be time to abandon this discussion and focus on identifying which patients benefit from which procedure.”<\/p>\n
They note that patients with an STS score of more than 3% appear to gain a survival advantage from off-pump CABG, while those aged 75 years and older appear to have a lower risk of stroke with off-pump CABG.
\n“It is time to change the discussion and choose the procedure that is best for the patient,” the editorialists conclude.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Latest article published in New England Journal of Medicine August 2017, about coronary bypass surgery done on pump (standard ) & off pump ( beating heart ) in this article of 5 year follow up in randomised trial shows that on pump ( STD ) CABG has better out come than beating heart off pump […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":201,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-angioplasty"],"yoast_head":"\n