4.7 Review

Clinical outcomes in randomized trials of off- vs. on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 29, Issue 21, Pages 2601-2616

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn335

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. The Danish Heart Foundation [08-4-R64A2029-B948-22480]
  2. The Danish Medical Research Council
  3. The Copenhagen Hospital Corporations Medical Research Council
  4. The Rigshospitalet Research Council
  5. The Copenhagen Trial Unit

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To assess the clinical outcomes of off- vs. on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in randomized trials. We searched electronic databases and bibliographies until June 2007. Trials were assessed for risk of bias. Outcome measures were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, atrial fibrillation, and renewed coronary revascularization at maximum follow-up. We applied trial sequential analysis to estimate the strength of evidence. We found 66 randomized trials. There was no statistically significant differences regarding mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.44], myocardial infarction (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.65-1.37), or renewed coronary revascularization (RR 1.34; 95% CI 0.83-2.18). We found a significant reduced risk of atrial fibrillation (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.83) and stroke (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.31-0.91) in off-pump patients. However, when continuity correction for zero-event trials was included, the reduction in stroke became insignificant (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.32-1.19). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated overwhelming evidence supporting that off-pump bypass surgery reduces atrial fibrillation. Off-pump surgery reduces the risks of postoperative atrial fibrillation compared with on-pump surgery. For death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and renewed coronary revascularization, the evidence is still weak and more low-bias risk trials are needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available