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 . Por 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. Recentdata
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- vascSurg.
2014;148:856– 64.
5.
Li Z, AmsterdamEA, 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, ReevesB, 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.
MöllerCH, 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, FavaratoD, 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.
HoulindK, 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-pumpor 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. NEngl 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 ThoracCardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:2472 –774.
18.
KussO, 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, PerkoMJ, 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 BeatingHeart Against Cardioplegic Arrest Studies (BHACAS 1 and 2): A pooled analysis
of two randomized control trials. Lancet. 2002;359:1194 –9.
21.
HoulindK, 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, RastiM, 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, DeverauxPJ,
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, HilkerM, 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, ThakarCV. 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.
ChengDC, 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 randomizedon 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, etal. 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, PolvaniGL, 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, SongH, et al. Long-term survival following coronary
artery bypass grafting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2280
–
8.32.
TakagiH, 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, vanDijk 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,