Efficacy and effectiveness of on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: A meta-analysis of mortality and survival

Background: Despite many studies comparing on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), there is no consensus as to whether one of these techniques offers patients better outcomes.

Methods: We searched PubMed from inception to June 30, 2015, and identified additional studies from bibliographies of meta-analyses and reviews. We identified 42 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 rigorously adjusted observational studies (controlling for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons-recognized risk factors for mortality) reporting mortality for off-pump versus on-pump CABG at specified time points. Trial data were extracted independently by 2 researchers using a standardized form. Differences in probability of mortality (DPM) were estimated for the RCTs and observational studies separately and combined, for time points ranging from 30 days to 10 years.

Results: RCT-only data showed no significant differences at any time point, whereas observational-only data and the combined analysis showed short-term mortality favored off-pump CABG (n = 1.2 million patients; 36 RCTs, 26 observational studies; DPM [95% confidence interval (CI)], -44.8% [-45.4%, -43.8%]) but that at 5 years it was associated with significantly greater mortality (n = 60,405 patients; 3 RCTs, 5 observational studies; DPM [95% CI], 10.0% [5.0%, 15.0%]). At 10 years, only observational data were available, and off-pump CABG showed significantly greater mortality (DPM [95% CI], 14.0% [11.0%, 17.0%]).

Conclusions: Evidence from RCTs showed no differences between the techniques, whereas rigorously adjusted observational studies (with >1.1 million patients) and the combined analysis indicated that off-pump CABG offers lower short-term mortality but poorer long-term survival. These results suggest that, in real-world settings, greater operative safety with off-pump CABG comes at the expense of lasting survival gains.