HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Correction (v,p) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Feng, Z.-Z. Articles by Xu, Z.-F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Feng, Z.-Z. Articles by Xu, Z.-F. Related Collections Coronary disease

---

Original Articles: Adult Cardiac

Meta-Analysis of On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Arterial Revascularization

^a Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
^b Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China

Accepted for publication November 17, 2008.

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Zhao, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Fengyang Rd 415, Shanghai, 200003, China (Email: jimmy-rockingboy{at}163.com).

Background: There is no agreement whether off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) can reduce mortality, rates of stroke, myocardial infarction, or revascularization when compared with conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB). We performed a meta-analysis comparing off-pump coronary artery bypass with conventional coronary artery bypass in randomized controlled trials.

Methods: We comprehensively retrieved randomized controlled studies according to predetermined criteria. We performed meta-analyses for each outcome and empirically determined whether potential biases that might result from differences in study design or patient characteristics actually biased the results of a study. We also conducted sensitivity analyses and tested for publication bias.

Results: We undertook a meta-analysis of ten randomized trials (2,018 patients) of OPCAB surgery versus CCAB surgery. No significant differences were found for 1-year mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.33), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.84), stroke (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.91), or revascularization (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.92). Therefore, this meta-analysis demonstrates that mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and revascularization were not reduced in OPCAB.

Conclusions: In conclusion, OPCAB did not significantly reduce 1-year mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and revascularization compared with CCAB.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. D. Peterson Innovation and Comparative-Effectiveness Research in Cardiac Surgery N. Engl. J. Med., November 5, 2009; 361(19): 1897 - 1899. [Full Text] [PDF]