Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  18 / 80 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 18 / 80 Next Page
Page Background

6

J.M. González

Santos, M.E. Arnáiz-García

/ Cir Cardiov. 2016;

23(1)

:1–7

favorecen

a

la

DAC

con

CEC.

Puede,

por

tanto,

afirmarse

que

el

recorte

en

el

gasto

que

supone

el menor

consumo

de

hemoderi-

vados

en

los

pacientes

intervenidos

sin

CEC

se

compensa

con

los

gastos

que

supone

la mayor necesidad

de nuevos procedimientos

de

revascularización y

los

relacionados

con

la mayor

incidencia de

complicaciones

en

los pacientes

que

tienen

que

ser

reconvertidos

a DAC con CE

C 1 . P

or ello, cuando

se planifica una cirugía

sin CEC, el

cirujano

no

debería

dudar

en

reconvertir

precozmente

la

técnica,

antes

de

forzar

condiciones

que

den

lugar

a

complicaciones

y

costes adicionales.

Conclusiones

Nada más

lejos

de

nuestra

intención

que

ser

inflexibles

en

las

conclusiones

obtenidas de

la

revisión de

la

literatura

y de nuestra

propia

experiencia.

Buena

parte

de

la

evidencia

disponible

indica

que

la DAC

sin

CEC,

cuando

se

lleva

a

cabo

por

cirujanos

experi-

mentados, puede resultar beneficiosa en aspectos de

trascendencia

clínica menor y que

la DAC con CEC debería

ser

la

técnica de

revas-

cularización

preferida

en

la mayoría

de

los

grupos.

Pero

ello

no

significa

que

no

exista

un

lugar

para

la

cirugía

sin

CEC.

Hay

cir-

cunstancias

donde

esta

técnica

es

claramente

ventajosa,

como

es

el

caso

de

los

pacientes

en

los

que

el

riesgo

de

la

CEC

es mayor

que el de una revascularización

incompleta y

los que

tienen ateros-

clerosis

aórtica

importante.

El problema

radica

en que para poder

llevar

a

cabo

esta

exigente

técnica,

especialmente

en

casos

com-

plejos,

es

necesario

disponer

de

un

equipo multidisciplinar

con

una

sólida

preparación

y

una

práctica

continua.

Un

cirujano

que

la

practique

de manera

ocasional

no

debería

considerarse

capa-

citado

para

hacerlo

como

lo

hace

uno

experimentado,

hasta

que

demuestre que puede conseguir

los mismos resultados que cuando

utiliza

la CEC. Esta práctica

continua puede

ser difícil de

justificar,

especialmente

cuando algunos de

los

casos en

los que estaría

indi-

cada pueden

ser

tratados

también

con

TRCP.

En

cualquier

caso,

el

entrenamiento debería hacerse en

centros especializados

con pro-

gramas establecidos que garanticen una supervisión apropiada por

cirujanos expertos. Lo que

falta por definir es cuánta experiencia es

necesaria para

introducir y mantener este procedimiento.

Bibliografía

1.

Houlind K. On-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: What is the status after ROOBY, DOORS, CORONARY and GOPCABE? Future Cardiol. 2013;9:569 –79.

2.

Taggart DP, Altman DG, Gray AM, Lees B, Nugara F, Yu LM, et al. Effects of on-pump and off-pump surgery in the arterial revascularization trial.

Eur J Car- diothorac

Surg.

2015;47:1059– 65.

3.

Pepper J. Recent

data

on off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: The CORO- NARY and GOPCABE trials.

Euro Interv. 2013;9:29 –32.

4.

Bakaeen FG, Shroyer ALW, Gammie JS, Sabik JF, Cornwell LD, Coselli JS, et al. Trends in use of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: Results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. J Thorac Cardio- vasc

Surg.

2014;148:856– 64.

5.

Li Z, Amsterdam

EA, Danielsen

B,

Hoegh H, Young JN, Armstrong

EJ. Intraopera- tive conversion from off-pump to on-pump coronary

artery bypass is

associated with increased 30-day

hospital readmission. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98:16 –22.

6.

VanD ijkD , Nierich AP, Jansen EW,

NathoeH M, Suyker WJ, Diephuis JC,

et al. Early outcome after off-pump versus on-pump coronary

bypass surgery: Results from a randomized study.

Circulation. 2001;104:1761 –6.

7.

Angelini GD, Taylor FC, Reeves

B, Ascione R. Beating Heart Against Cardioplegic Arrest Studies (BHACAS 1 and 2):

Clinical outcome in two randomized controlled trials. Lancet.

2002;359:1194– 9.

8.

Puskas JD, Wilimas WH, Duke PG, Staples JR, Glas KE,

Marshall JJ, et al. Off- pump coronary artery bypass grafting provides

complete revascularization with reducedm yocardial injury, transfusion requirements, and length of s tay: A pros- pective randomizedc omparisono ft wo hundred unselected patients undergoing off-pump versus conventional

coronary artery bypass

grafting. J Thorac

Cardio- vasc

Surg.

2003;125:797– 808.

9.

Möller

CH, Jensen

BO, Gluud C,

Perko

MJ, Lund JT, Andersen LW, et al. The best bypass surgery trial: Rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial with blinded

outcome assessment of conventional versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Contemp Clin Trials.

2007;28:540– 7.

10.

Hueb W, Lopes NH, Pereira AC, Hueb AC, Soares PR, Favarato

D, et al. Five-year follow-up of a randomized comparison between off-pump and on-pump sta- ble multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting. The MASS trial. Circulation. 2010;122 Suppl 1:S48 –52.

11.

Shroyer AL, Grover FL, Hattler B, Collins JF, McDonald GO, Kozora E, et al. On-Punp versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1827 –37.

12.

Houlind

K, Kjeldsen BJ,

Madsen SN, Rasmussen BS,

Holem SJ, Schmidt TA, et al. The impact of avoiding cardiopulmonary

bypass during coronary artery bypass surgery in elderly patients: The Danish On-pump Off-pump Randomization Study (DOORS). Trials. 2009;10:47

56.

13.

Lamy A, Deveraux PJ, Pranhajaran D, Taggart D, Shenshou D, Paolasso E, et al. Off-pump

or on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting a 30-days.

N Engl J

Med. 2012;366:1489 –97.

14.

Diegeler A, Börgermann J, Kappert U, Breuer M, Böning A, Ursulescu A, et al. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting in elderly patients. N

Engl J

Med. 2013;368:1189 –98.

15.

Sergeant P, Puskas J. Imperitia culpae adnumeratur. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96:751 –4.

16.

Briffa N.

Off pump coronary artery bypass: A passing fad or ready for prime time. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:1346 –9.

17.

SabikJ F III.O n-pump coronary revascularization shouldb e our preferred surgical revascularization strategy. J Thorac

Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:2472 –774.

18.

Kuss

O, von Salviati

B,

Börgermann J.

Off-pump versus on-pump

coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and

meta-analysis of propensity score analyses. J Thorac

Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140:829 –35.

19.

Möller CH, Perko

MJ, Lund JT, Andersen LW, Kelbaek

H, Madsen JK, et al. No major differences in 30-day

outcomes in high-risk patients randomized to off- pump versus

on-pump coronary bypass surgery. The best bypass surgery trial. Circulation. 2010;121:498 –504.

20.

Angelini GD, Taylor FC, Reeves BC, Ascione R. 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 randomized control trials. Lancet. 2002;359:1194 –9.

21.

Houlind

K, Kjeldsen BJ, Madsen SN, Rasmussen BS, Holme SJ, Nielsen PH, et al. On-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in elderly patients. Results from the Danish On-pump versus

Off-pump Randomization

Study. Cir- culation. 2012;125:2431 –9.

22.

Afialo A, Rasti

M, Ohayon SM, Shimony A, Eisenberg

MJ. Off-pump vs. on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery:

an updated meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:1257 –67.

23.

Lamy A, Tong W, Deveraux

PJ,

Gao P, Gafni A,

et al. The cost implications of off- pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery at one year. Ann Thorac

Surg.

2014;98:1620– 6.

24.

Reents W, Hilker

M, Börermann J, Albert

M, Plötze K, Zacher M, et al. Acute kidney injury after on-pump or off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in elderly patients. Ann Thorac

Surg.

2014;98:9 –15.

25.

Nigwekar SU, Kandula P, Hix JK, Thakar

CV. Off-pump coronary artery bypass and acute

kidney injury: A

meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009;54:413 –23.

26.

Cheng

DC, Bainbridge D,

Martin JE,

Novick RJ, The

evidence-based

perioperative clinical outcomes research group. Does off-pump

coronary artery bypass reduce mortality, morbidity,

and resource

utilization when compared with conventio- nal coronary artery bypass? A meta-analysiso fr andomizedt rials. Anesthesiolgy. 2005;102:188 –203.

27.

Almassi GH, Pecsi SA, Collins JF, Shroyer AL, Zenati MA, Grover FL. Predic- tors and impact op postoperative atrial fibrillation on patient’s outcome: A report from the randomized

on versus off bypass trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143:93

102.

28.

Böling A, Diegeler A, Hilker M, Zacher M, Reents W, Faerber G, et

al. Preoperative atrial fibrillation and outcome in patients undergoing on-pump or off-pump coronary bypass surgery: Lessons learned from the GOPCABE trail. Interactiv Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;20:74

8.

29.

TakagiH.

Mizuno Y, Niwa M, Goto S, for the ALICE Group. A meta-analysis of randomized trials for repeat revascularization following off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Intereract Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;17:878 –81.

30.

Alamai F, Dainese L, Naliato M, Gregu S, Agrifolio M, Polvani

GL, et al. On- and Off-pump coronary surgery and perioperative myocardial infarction: An issue between incomplete and extensive revascularization. Eur J

Cardio-thorac Surg. 2008;34:118 –26.

31.

Kim JBK, Yun SC, Lim JW, Hwang SK, Jung SH, Song

H, et al. Long-term survival following coronary

artery bypass grafting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2280

8.

32.

Takagi

H, Umemoto T, for the ALICE Group. Worse long-term survival after off- pump than on-pump

coronary artery bypass

grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:1820 –9.

33.

Takagi H, Watanabe T, Mizuno Y, Kawai N,

Umemoto T, for the ALICE Group. A meta-analysis of adjusted risk estimates for survival from observational studies of complete versus incomplete revascularization in patients with

multivessel disease undergoing

coronary artery bypass grafting. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;18:679 –82.

34.

Nathoe HM, van

Dijk D, Jansen EW, Suyker WJ, Diephuis JC, van

Boyen WJ, et

al. A comparison of on– pump and off-pump coronary bypass surgery in low-risk patients. N Engl J

Med. 2003;348:394 –402.

35.

Angelini GC, Culliford L, Smith DK, Hamilton MC, Murphy GJ, Ascione R, et al. Effects of on-pump and off-pump coronary artery surgery on graft patency,