Re-OPCAB vs. Re-CABG for myocardial revascularization

The present study compared redo coronary artery bypass grafting (Re-OPCAB) techniques with conventional redo coronary artery bypass grafting (Re-CABG) with particular focus on myocardial damage and clinical outcome parameters.

Redo OPCAB (Re-OPCAB) was performed on 20 consecutive patients (15 males, mean age 63.2 +/- 9.3 years) using either the anterolateral approach for minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (n = 4) or the Octopus technique with regular sternotomy (n = 16). The Re-CABG group consisted of 20 consecutive patients (18 males, mean age 67.1 +/- 6.6 years). Groups did not differ in the number of atherosclerotic risk factors, or left ventricular, renal or liver function.

Duration of surgery, number of bypass grafts and amount of transfused red blood cells did not differ significantly between both groups. Requirement of epinephrine (mg/h) within the first 24 h was lower in the Re-OPCAB group (Re-OPCAB: 0.14 +/- 0.22 vs. CABG: 0.88 +/- 0.97; p<0.01). In addition, CKMB levels at 24 h after operation were lower in the Re-OPCAB group (Re-OPCAB: 10.0 +/- 10.1 vs. Re-CABG: 38.7 +/- 28.1 U/l, p<0.001). There were no acute myocardial infarctions or deaths in the perioperative period. In the CABG group, there was a longer time period to extubation (hours) (Re-OPCAB: 9.8 +/- 3.9 vs. Re-CABG: 28.7 +/- 25.5; p<0.001), and the length of ICU stay was significantly prolonged (OPCAB: 1.3 +/- 0.5 versus Re-CABG: 4.4 +/- 8.7; p<0.001). The graft patency rate at follow-up was 95% in the Re-OPCAB group.

Re-OPCAB results in decreased cardiac specific enzyme release, reduced requirement of inotropes and comparable clinical outcome in the early postoperative period. It is an appropriate alternative to conventional Re-CABG in selected patients awaiting reoperation for myocardial revascularization. Larger prospective and randomized trials are required to select the appropriate patient who benefits most from one or the other treatment regime.