These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Meta-analysis of on-pump and off-pump coronary arterial revascularization.
    Author: Feng ZZ, Shi J, Zhao XW, Xu ZF.
    Journal: Ann Thorac Surg; 2009 Mar; 87(3):757-65. PubMed ID: 19231385.
    Abstract:
    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], 0.56 to 1.77), [corrected] myocardial infarction (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.72 to 2.67), [corrected] stroke (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.47), 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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]