Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 16, 2026

Surgical Porcine Model of Chronic Myocardial Ischemia Treated by Exosome-laden Collagen Patch and Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft
Published on: September 15, 2023
Does off-pump or minimally invasive coronary artery bypass reduce mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization when
Daniel Bainbridge1, Davy Cheng, Janet Martin
1Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Insights
Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) offers improved clinical outcomes for single- or double-vessel coronary artery disease compared to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, OPCAB is associated with a longer hospital stay.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Interventional Cardiology
- Medical Technology Assessment
Background:
- Coronary artery disease (CAD) management involves surgical and interventional approaches.
- Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are common revascularization strategies.
- Comparative effectiveness of OPCAB versus PCI for specific CAD severities requires ongoing evaluation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To meta-analyze randomized trials comparing OPCAB (including minimally invasive) with PCI for single- or double-vessel CAD.
- To assess the impact of OPCAB versus PCI on short-term and midterm clinical outcomes and resource utilization.
Main Methods:
- Systematic search of randomized trials up to May 2006 in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstract databases.
- Inclusion criteria: randomized trials comparing OPCAB (sternotomy or minimally invasive) vs. PCI with predefined outcomes.
- Statistical analysis using odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Main Results:
- Six trials with 989 patients were analyzed.
- OPCAB significantly reduced angina recurrence (OR 0.54) and need for reintervention (OR 0.24) at 1-5 years compared to PCI.
- Major adverse coronary events were reduced (OR 0.44) and event-free survival increased (OR 2.32) with OPCAB; coronary stenosis was also reduced (OR 0.31).
- Hospital stay was significantly longer with OPCAB (WMD 4.03 days); quality of life favored OPCAB in some aspects.
- No significant differences in death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between groups.
Conclusions:
- OPCAB demonstrates superior short-term and midterm clinical outcomes compared to PCI in patients with single- or double-vessel CAD.
- The benefits of OPCAB include reduced reintervention rates and major adverse coronary events.
- A notable drawback of OPCAB is the associated increase in hospital length of stay.
Objective:
To determine, through meta-analysis, whether off-pump coronary artery bypass, including minimally invasive off-pump coronary artery bypass, improves short-term and midterm outcomes compared with percutaneous coronary intervention for single- or double-vessel coronary artery disease.
Methods:
The primary outcome was need for coronary reintervention at 1 to 5 years. Secondary outcomes included all major clinical morbidities and resource utilization. A comprehensive search was undertaken to identify all randomized trials of off-pump coronary artery bypass versus percutaneous coronary intervention. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and abstract databases were searched up to May 2006. All randomized trials comparing off-pump coronary artery bypass (sternotomy or minimally invasive) versus percutaneous coronary intervention and reporting at least one predefined outcome were included. Odds ratios (OR, 95% confidence intervals [CI]) and weighted mean differences (WMD, 95% CI) were analyzed.
Results:
Six trials involving 989 patients were included. Compared with percutaneous coronary intervention, off-pump coronary artery bypass decreased angina recurrence (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.87) and need for reintervention at 1 to 5 years (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15-0.40). Major adverse coronary events were significantly reduced (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30-0.63) and event-free survival was significantly increased at 1 to 5 years (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.62-3.32) for off-pump coronary artery bypass versus percutaneous coronary intervention. Coronary stenosis at 6 months was reduced with off-pump coronary artery bypass compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.18-0.55). Hospital stay was significantly increased with off-pump coronary artery bypass versus percutaneous coronary intervention (WMD 4.03, 95% CI 2.37-5.70). Quality of life favored off-pump coronary artery bypass in some domains but was reported in few studies. Death, myocardial infarction, and stroke did not significantly differ.
Conclusions:
In single- or double-vessel disease, off-pump coronary artery bypass improved short-term and midterm clinical outcomes compared with percutaneous coronary intervention but was associated with an increased length of hospital stay.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care

