OPCAB surgery: a voyage of discovery back to the future

R Ascione and G.D Angelini

Bristol Heart Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Introduction

The resurgence of off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery is rapidly changing surgical practice. After an initial phase of ‘healthy skepticism’, the impetus of some developed countries toward OPCAB surgery is remarkable. Hardly any OPCAB procedure was carried out before 1995 in the USA, however, by 1999 more than 11 000 (10%) coronary operations were performed on the beating heart.1 It is estimated that, worldwide, this percentage is currently up to 20–30%, with expectations to reach 50% by 2005.2–3 Many sceptics have becomeoptimists following the development of enabling instruments and the publication of supportive evidence as part of observational, case-matched, and prospective randomised studies.

Historical aspects

The concept of direct mammary–coronary anastomoses was advocated separately by Demikhov and Murray in animal models in the early 1950s.4–5 The first saphenous vein graft to bypass the right coronary artery was performed by Sabiston on the beating heart in 1962.6 Kolesov performed the first mammary–coronary anastomosis, on the beating heart in a human, in 1964.7 After the advent of the heart–lung machine, few surgeons continued to use the OPCAB technique, and when they did it was for economic reasons.8–9 Among those were Benetti8 and Buffolo9 from South America, who published in the early 1990s the first two large series on OPCAB surgery. These results, as well as the interest in minimally invasive coronary surgery through mini-thoracotomy approaches, prompted the development of enabling systems and devices that ultimately made the OPCAB a safe and routine procedure.

The rationale

Despite advances in perfusion, anaesthetic and surgical techniques, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is still associated with significant morbidity due to its un-physiological nature. The morbidity rate has indeed remained high, particularly in the ever-increasing high-risk surgical population presenting with co-morbidities. Contact of blood components with the artificial surfaces of the bypass circuit, aortic cross-clamping and reperfusion injury are considered the main causative factors of inflammatory response following cardiac surgery. Furthermore, nonpulsatile flow, hypothermia, duration of CPB, hypoperfusion, and microemboli of gaseous or particulate nature all contribute to end organ injury.10–15 OPCAB surgery, by means of avoiding CPB and cardioplegic arrest, is expected to produce significant benefits. Ideally OPCAB surgery should at least equal conventional surgery in terms of mortality while improving in-hospital morbidityand maintaining the excellence of long-termclinical outcome. The relatively simple technology required and reduced hospitalization costs may make coronary surgery available to undeveloped countries.

Indications

In the absence of recognized guidelines, patient selection criteria are still unclear and the first approach is often the surgeon's ‘common sense’. Theoretically, there are no limitations to the application of OPCAB surgery, but in practice it varies from 0 to 100% depending on the phase of the learning curve of each surgeon.16–19 Common sense suggests that a surgeon starting an OPCAB programme should consider avoiding dilated or poor left ventricles, very small, intramyocardial, or diffusely diseased vessels, and haemodynamicallyunstable patients with recent myocardial infarction. Preventing conduction and haemodynamicdeterioration when positioning the beating heart to graft on the lateral and posterior walls is also of paramount importance. This can be achieved with a combination of surgical manoeuvres, including the Trendelenburg, fluid administration, incrementsof vasoconstrictor agents like metaraminol, and inotropes if necessary. Intracoronary shunts have been introduced to prevent snaring-related injury of the coronary vessels and to allow myocardial perfusion during the construction of the anastomoses. Finally, excessive motion of the coronarytarget, a main concern as a potential cause of suboptimal anastomoses, has been overcome with the introduction of either pressure or suction retractor-stabilizers.

The evidence

The initial ‘healthy skepticism’ against OPCAB surgery, was based on the potential for intra-operative myocardial ischaemia, suboptimal anastomoses, and a protracted learning curve. In contrast, the initial ‘gut feeling’ enthusiasm of others was based on the potential of reducing morbidity while allowing undeveloped countries to access a programme of coronary surgery at reduced cost. This debate has provoked an increasingly rigorous process of scientific validation in several centres. Theresult has been a large number of observational, case-matched, and prospective randomized trials.

BHACAS 1 and 2 trials
The Beating Heart Against Cardioplegic ArrestStudies (BHACAS 1 and 2) were two single-centre randomized trials carried out at the Bristol Heart Institute on a total population of 401 (200 off-pump) elective patients.16 The main aim was to compare early and mid-term morbidity and use of healthcare resources. In-hospital mortality did not differ between groups (1% and 0% on- vs off-pump). However, benefits associated with OPCAB surgery included significant reduction of chest infection, inotropic requirement, arrhythmias, total chest tube drainage and consequent transfusion requirement, intubation time, intensive care, and hospital stay. In subgroups of the same population we also showed that off-pump surgery reduces inflammatory activation,20 myocardial injury,21 renal damage,22 and injury to the blood–brain barrier.23 An economic analysis showed off-pump surgeryto be cost effective, with a saving of about 25%per patient when compared to conventionalrevascularization.24

One of the major criticisms against OPCABsurgery has been the performance of suboptimal anastomoses with the potential for poor long-term results. This possibly has been the main reason preventing a more generalised use of the technique. The results of the pooled analysis of our two trials16 showed a mean follow-up of 25.0 months (SD 9.1) for BHACAS 1, and 13.7 months (5.5) for BHACAS 2. Pooled survival estimates at 24 months were 96% (CI 91–98) and 97% (92–99) for theon-pump and off-pump groups, respectively. Myocardial infarction and recurrence of angina were 4% vs 2%, and 14% vs 12% in the on-pump and off-pump groups respectively. Six (3%) patients in the on-pump and seven (4%) in the off-pump grouprequired repeat catheterization. Four out of these 13 patients showed no evidence of stenotic grafts or progression of coronary disease. There was no evidence of a stenotic graft in the remaining nine patients, but four (2%) patients in each grouprequired a PTCA procedure on new stenotic lesions, and one (0.5%) in the off-pump group neededrepeat surgical revascularisation. Pooled estimates for survival free from any cardiac-related event at 24 months were 78% and 84% for the on- and off-pump groups, respectively. No significant differences were recorded in the frequencies of any non cardiac-related events between groups. Medications taken at follow-up also did not significantly differ between groups. These results strongly suggest that the expressed concern of suboptimal anastomoses with OPCAB surgery is not justified.

Other evidence to date
The outcome of a multicentre randomized trial in a cohort of 281 patients (142 off-pump) was reported by van Dijk and co-workers,17 with no difference in terms of in-hospital mortality and morbidity. The off-pump patients, however, had a shorter ventilation time, were discharged 1 day earlier and had a reduction of 41% release of CK-MB when compared to the on-pump patients. A review of the outcome of 118140 CABG-only procedures of the STSNational Adult Cardiac Surgery Database has been recently published.1 Of these, 11717 (9.9%) were off-pump procedures. A risk-adjusted analysis showed significant benefits associated with OPCAB surgery, including reduced operative mortality (from 2.9% to 2.3%), and major complications such as deep sternal infection, bleeding, renal failure, and prolonged ventilation (from 14.1% to 10.6%). Similar results were reported by Plomondon et al.18 in a large prospective cohort study from the VAContinuous Improvement in Cardiac SurgeryProgram. Calafiore et al.19 in 1843 consecutivepatients (919 off-pump, 49.9%) also reported a significantly lower in-hospital mortality, perioperative MI, cardiovascular accident (CVA), and early major complications in the off-pump compared to the on-pump group. In a similar retrospective comparison by Hernandez et al.25 of 6126 conventional CABG vs 1741 OPCAB procedures, in-hospital mortality, major complications such as mediastinatis, stroke, and reopening for bleeding were similar between groups, although OPCAB surgery resulted in a statistically significant reduction in need for IABP, and incidence of post-operative atrial fibrillation. Recently, Magee et al.26 in 8449 CABG procedures (1983 OPCAB) in a multivariate logistic regression analysis found CPB to be an independent predictor of mortality.

High-risk patients might benefit the most from OPCAB surgery. We recently investigated theincidence of early mortality and morbidity in 1570 consecutive high-risk CABG-only patients (332 (21.1%) undergoing OPCAB surgery) selectedby: age >75, ejection fraction <30%, recent MI(<1 month), current congestive cardiac failure, previous CVA, serum creatinine >130 µmol, respiratory impairment, peripheral vascular disease, redo surgery, and intraoperative endarterectomy.27 After adjustment for known prognostic factors, themajority of the variables investigated showedbenefit associated with OPCAB surgery, and this was highly statistically significant for transfusion requirement, ICU and hospital stay. In another study,28 253 patients with preoperative serumcreatinine >150 mol.l–1were identified, and these included 51 patients undergoing OPCAB surgery. A multiple logistic regression analysis showed CPB inclusive of cardioplegic arrest to be an independent predictor of acute renal failure (ARF). Mageeet al.,29 in a retrospective study on the influence of diabetes mellitus on mortality and morbidity, found that diabetic patients undergoing OPCAB surgery had a significantly lower incidence of post-operative ARF when compared with patients undergoing conventional surgery. A recent study performed at our institution on obese patients, after adjustment for confounding variables, showed that off-pump surgery was associated with a significant benefit for in-hospital mortality, intra-operative arrhythmias and inotropic use, post-operative blood loss, transfusion requirement, chest infections, low cardiac output, use of IABP, arrhythmias, pulmonary complications, neurological complications including stroke, intubation time, ICU and hospital length of stay.30 Evidence supporting the use of OPCAB surgery in elderly patientshas also been provided, with a decreasing rate of major post-operative complications, including low-output syndrome, atrial fibrillation, blood usage, prolonged ICU and hospital stay.31–32

Finally, several prospective studies have also focused on the impact of OPCAB surgery on subsystem organ function showing, when compared to conventional surgery, a significant attenuation of inflammatory activation,33 less myocardial injury as suggested by a lower release of troponin I or CK-MB,17,33 and reduced cerebral injury as assessed by serum S100 protein release.23,34 The results on cognitive dysfunction, however, are conflicting,either lower23,35 or similar34,36 during OPCAB, when compared to conventional surgery.

Conclusion

First pioneered in the early days of coronaryrevascularisation, OPCAB surgery was soonabandoned due to the advent of the heart–lung machine. However, the voyage of discovery ofOPCAB surgery continued thanks to the enthusiasm of a few surgeons and their desire to simplify coronary artery surgery techniques. In the 1990s they exposed themselves to the ‘healthy skepticism’ of the scientific community given the excellent results of conventional coronary surgery, the best validated surgical procedure ever. From the initial view that OPCAB surgery was ‘a triumph of technical skill over common sense’ as ‘a surgeon's ego trip’ the voyage continued, mostly along the road of developing enabling instruments and techniques to improve exposure and stabilisation during construction of the coronary anastomosis. The result is that OPCAB surgery is now a proven, safe, cost effective and reproducible surgical technique, in effect ‘a triumph of simplicity’.

References

  1. Cleveland JC, Shroyer LW, Chen AY, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting decreases risk-adjusted mortality and morbidity. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:1282–1289[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Mark DB, Newman MF. Protecting the brain in coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA. 2002;287:1448–1450[Free Full Text]
  3. Shennib HA. A renaissance in cardiovascular surgery:endovascular and device-based revascularisation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:993–994[CrossRef]
  4. Westaby S, Benetti FJ. Less invasive coronary surgery: consensus from the Oxford Meeting. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;62:924–931[Free Full Text]
  5. Demikhov VP. Experimental Transplantation of Vital Organs. [authorized translation from Russian by Basil Haigh]New York: Consultant's Bureau Enterprises; 1962. p. 220–227
  6. Westaby S. Landmarks in Cardiac Surgery. Oxford: Isis Medical Media Ltd; 1997. p. 196
  7. Spencer FC, Galloway AC, Colvin SB. Surgical management of coronary artery disease. Bypass grafting for coronary artery disease. Sabiston DC Jr, Spencer FC. Surgery of the Chest. 6th edn. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1995. p. 1884–1885
  8. Benetti FJ, Naselli C, Wood M, et al. Direct myocardial revascularization without extracorporeal circulation. Experience in 700 patients. Chest. 1991;100:312–316[Abstract]
  9. Buffolo E, Silva de Andrade JC, Rodrigues Branco JN, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;61:63–66[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Kirklin JK, Westaby S, Blackstone EH, et al. Complement and the damaging effects of cardiopulmonary bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1983;86:845–857[Abstract]
  11. Edmunds LH. Inflammatory response to CPB. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:S12–S16 [discussion S25–8][Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Butler J, Parker D, Pillai R, et al. Effect of cardiopulmonar bypass on systemic release of neutrophil elastase and tumor necrosis factor. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1993;105:25–30[Abstract]
  13. Ip-Yam PC, Murphy S, Baines M, et al. Renal function and proteinuria after CPB: the effects of temperature and mannitol. Anesth Analg. 1994;78:842–847[Abstract]
  14. Hickey P, Buckley M, Philibin D. Pulsatile and nonpulsatile CPB: review of a counterproductive controversy. [Collective review]Ann Thorac Surg. 1983;36:720–737[Abstract]
  15. Clark RE, Brillman J, Davies DA, et al. Microemboli during coronary artery bypass grafting: genesis and effect on outcome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;109:249–257[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Angelini GD, Taylor FC, Reeves BC, et al. Early and midterm outcome after off-pump and on-pump surgery in Beating Heart Against Cardioplegic Arrest Studies (BHACAS 1 and 2): a pooled analysis of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2002;359:1194–1199[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. van Dijk D, Nierich AP, Jansen WL, et al. Early outcome after off-pump versus on-pump coronary bypass surgery. Results from a randomised study. Circulation. 2001;104:1761–1766[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Plomondon ME, Cleveland JC, Ludwig ST, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass is associated with improvedrisk-adjusted outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:114–119[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Calafiore AM, Di Mauro M, Contini M, et al. Myocardial revascularisation with and without cardiopulmonary bypass in multivessel desease: impact of the strategy on early outcome. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:456–463[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Ascione R, Lloyd CT, Underwood MJ, et al. Inflammatory response after coronary revascularisation with or without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:1198–1204[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Ascione R, Lloyd CT, Gomes WJ, et al. Beating versus arrested heart revascularization: evaluation of myocardial function in a prospective randomised study. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg. 1999;15:685–690[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Ascione R, Lloyd CT, Underwood MJ, et al. On pump versus off pump coronary revascularization: evaluation of renal function. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68:493–498[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Lloyd CT, Ascione R, Underwood MJ, et al. Serum S-100 protein release and neuropsychologic outcome during coronary revascularisation on the beating heart: a prospective randomised study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119:148–154[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Ascione R, Lloyd CT, Underwood MJ, et al. Economic outcome of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: aprospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68:2237–2242[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Hernandez F, Cohn W, Baribeau YR, et al. In-hospital outcomes of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass procedures: a multicenter experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:1528–1534[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Magee MJ, Jablonski KA, Stamou SC, et al. Elimination of cardiopulmonary bypass improves early survival for multivessel coronary artery bypass patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:1196–1203[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Chamberlain MH, Ascione R, Reeves BC, et al. Evaluationof the effectiveness of off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in high-risk patients: an observational study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:1866–1873[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Ascione R, Nason G, Al-Ruzzeh S, et al. Coronary revascularisation with or without cardiopulmonary bypass inpatients with preoperative nondialysis dependent renal insufficiency. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:2020–2025[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Magee MJ, Dewey TM, Acuff T, et al. Influence of diabeteson mortality and morbidity: off-pump coronary arterybypass grafting versus coronary artery grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:776–781[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Ascione R, Reeves BC, Rees K, et al. Effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting with or without cardiopulmonary bypass in overweight patients. Circulation. 2002;106:1764–1770[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Hirose H, Amano A, Takahashi A. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for elderly patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72:2013–2019[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Boyd WD, Desai ND, Del Rizzo DF, et al. Off-pump surgery decreases postoperative complications and resource utilization in the elderly. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68:1490–1493[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Wan S, Izzat BM, Lee TW, et al. Avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass reduces cytokine response and myocardial injury. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68:52–57[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Diegeler A, Hirsch R, Schneider F. Neuromonitoring and neurocognitive outcome in off-pump versus conventional coronary bypass operation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:1162–1166[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. van-Dijk D, Jansen EW, Hijman R, et al. Cognitive outcome after off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypasssurgery. A randomised trial. JAMA. 2002;287:1405–1412[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Taggart DP, Browne SM, Halligan PW, et al. Is CPB still the cause of cognitive dysfunction after cardiac operations? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999;118:414–420[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Ascione, R
Articles by Angelini, G.D
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Ascione, R
Articles by Angelini, G.D