The longstanding debate on off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (ONCAB) has primarily focused on short-term and mid-term outcomes, with limited attention to long-term survival. This study aims to address this gap by providing an updated analysis of 10-year mortality rates after OPCAB versus ONCAB. We have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, incorporating 22 studies comprising 69,449 patients. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 10 years. Meta-regression analysis explored sources of heterogeneity. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in long-term all-cause mortality between OPCAB and ONCAB (hazard ratio 1.000, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.08, p = 0.95). Although substantial heterogeneity existed across studies, meta-regression identified older age as a significant factor favoring OPCAB. However, patient characteristics like gender, co-morbidities, and graft numbers did not significantly influence the choice of surgical technique. In conclusion, this study challenges historical concerns regarding OPCAB's quality of revascularization and long-term survival demonstrating comparable outcomes to ONCAB in well-selected patients when performed by experienced surgeons. The results emphasize the importance of surgeon proficiency and advocate for recognizing surgical revascularization as a subspecialty.
Keywords: long-term; off-pump coronary artery bypass; outcomes; surgical coronary revascularization.
Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.