18 Apr, 17 | by flee
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) may significantly improve quality of life and longevity. As with all therapies, however, these benefits must be weighed against potential risks. Some hypothesize that aortic cross clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass, historically utilized during CABG, increase the potential for certain complications and can be successfully avoided with newer “off-pump” CABG techniques. Various studies have examined the benefits of off-pump vs. on-pump CABG with the largest to date being the international, multi-center, randomized CABG Off or On Pump Revascularization Study (CORONARY) study, involving 4,752 patients. The previously reported 30 day and 1 year data from this study demonstrated no difference between techniques, but here the 5-year data are published. Using a composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, or repeat coronary revascularization, there was no difference between the two surgical techniques (23.1% vs. 23.6%, P=0.72) or indeed, in any of the individuals components of the outcome. There were also no significant between-group differences in quality-of-life measures. A secondary analysis of economic cost also found no significant difference between the two modalities (US$15,107 vs. US$14,992).