Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 65(S 03): S174-S178
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1601376
Tribute
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

20 Years of Off-Pump Coronary Bypass Surgery in Clinical Routine: An Evolution with Contribution by the Leipzig Heart Center

Anno Diegeler
1   Herzchirurgie, Herz-und Gefässklinik GmbH, Bad Neustadt a. d. Saale, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

02 March 2017

02 March 2017

Publication Date:
07 April 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Introduction

The use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) enabled coronary artery bypass surgery to become the most successful therapy to treat coronary artery disease until now. To perform coronary artery bypass surgery, however, neither CPB nor an arrested or fibrillating heart are required. Use of CPB and cardiac arrest may lead to enhanced surgical safety and an increased comfort for the surgeon during the procedure, however, off-pump techniques may provide similar functionality in experienced hands.

In the late 1990s, cardiac surgeons were stimulated by the evolution of minimally invasive surgery and interventions in other surgical disciplines; hence in the analogy, they evaluated new techniques for potential applications when treating heart diseases, such as mitral valve and coronary artery disease. For the latter, pioneering work was undertaken by Benetti from Argentina and Subramanian from the United States, who avoided the sternotomy approach, harvested the internal mammary artery via a minithoracotomy on the left side, and performed an anastomosis to the left anterior descending coronary artery on the beating heart without using the heart-lung machine (minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass [MIDCAB]-procedure).[1] [2]

At the same time, a group of technicians and surgeons in Utrecht, The Netherlands, developed a vacuum stabilization device to expose different coronary arteries. With this technique, all significant targets could be addressed, thus enabling a complete “off-pump” coronary revascularization via sternotomy (off-pump coronary artery bypass [OPCAB] procedure).[3]

Soon after, a small community of surgeons who aimed for less-invasive techniques and approaches in cardiac surgery met at conventions to exchange their experience. During those days Prof. Mohr gave me the task to follow this evolution and to implement it into the surgical program in Leipzig, Germany. This was a mission rather than a task. The group of minimally invasive pioneering surgeons grew vastly; the conventions became bigger and attracted the attention of an increasing number of cardiac surgeons. In 1997, the International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) was founded in Minneapolis, United States. By following the mission of his mentor, Prof. Mohr, the author became a member of ISMICS soon after its establishment and had the honor to serve as the president of the society in 2010. After an initial training at the Stanford University ([Fig. 1]) the team from Leipzig tried out different approaches and devices for the MIDCB and OPCAB procedure ([2] [3] [4]).

Leipzig was of course not the only center in Germany joining the minimally invasive track in cardiac surgery. Minimally invasive coronary surgery was successfully implemented by Hermann Reichenspurner in Munich (now in Hamburg), Vasillios Gulielmos in Dresden (now in Thessaloniki), and Jochen Cremer in Hannover (now in Kiel). Surgeons from other centers accompanied this evolution during this early period. Falk et al implemented the totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass by using the IntuitiveT telemanipulator (Mountain View, California, United States).[4] He spent 12 months in California working at Stanford University and the research and development department of the company to find technical solutions enabling endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting on the arrested and beating heart. This also included the development of an endoscopic stabilizer.

Today, both techniques, the MIDCAB and the OPCAB, have been fully implemented in the surgical treatment of coronary artery disease. To this end, several scientific trials had to be performed to ensure the safety and efficacy of both techniques. Some of the first clinical trials were conducted in Leipzig, and a randomized “landmark” trial was set up for the MIDCAB technique to compare the minimally invasive surgical approach with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).[4]

During the past 20 years, hundreds of further scientific trials have dealt with questions surrounding OPCAB. Nonetheless, there is still a lack of evidence that specific patient populations benefit from the OPCAB technique. At the same time, drug-eluting stents improved the results after PCI of the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) and displaced the MIDCAB approach in most of the cases, resulting in the decline of MIDCAB procedures in most centers. The following review aims to give a comprehensive update on both surgical techniques and strategies.

 

  • References

  • 1 Sani G, Benetti F, Mariani MA, Lisi G, Maccherini M, Toscano M. Arterial myocardial revascularization without cardiopulmonary bypass through a small thoracotomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1996; 10 (8) 699-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Subramanian VA. Less invasive arterial CABG on a beating heart. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 63 (6, Suppl): S68-S71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Jansen EW, Borst C, Lahpor JR , et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass using the octopus method: results in the first one hundred patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998; 116 (1) 60-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Falk V, Jacobs S, Gummert J, Walther T. Robotic coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)--the Leipzig experience. Surg Clin North Am 2003; 83 (6) 1381-1386 , ix
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Diegeler A, Thiele H, Falk V , et al. Comparison of stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. N Engl J Med 2002; 347 (8) 561-566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bucerius J, Metz S, Walther T , et al. Endoscopic internal thoracic artery dissection leads to significant reduction of pain after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2002; 73 (4) 1180-1184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Subramanian VA, Patel N. New minimal access approaches to multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting without pump. Curr Cardiol Rep 1999; 1 (4) 311-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Watanabe G, Misaki T, Kotoh K, Kawakami K, Yamashita A, Ueyama K. Multiple minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting for the complete revascularization of the left ventricle. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68 (1) 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Diegeler A, Matin M, Falk V , et al. Quality assessment in minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1999; 16 (Suppl. 02) S67-S72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Falk V, Diegeler A, Walther T , et al. Intraoperative patency control of arterial grafts in minimally invasive coronary artery bypass graft operations by means of endoscopic thermal coronary angiography. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997; 114 (3) 507-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Subramanian VA, McCabe JC, Geller CM. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting: two-year clinical experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 64 (6) 1648-1653 , discussion 1654–1655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Diegeler A, Walther T, Metz S , et al. Comparison of MIDCAP versus conventional CABG surgery regarding pain and quality of life. Heart Surg Forum 1999; 2 (4) 290-295 , discussion 295–296
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Holzhey DM, Cornely JP, Rastan AJ, Davierwala P, Mohr FW. Review of a 13-year single-center experience with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass as the primary surgical treatment of coronary artery disease. Heart Surg Forum 2012; 15 (2) E61-E68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rosenblum JM, Harskamp RE, Hoedemaker N , et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery with bilateral or single internal mammary artery grafts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 151 (4) 1081-1089
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Diegeler A. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization: The Best of 2 Worlds?. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68 (4) 366-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Blazek S, Holzhey D, Jungert C , et al. Comparison of bare-metal stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery: 10-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 6 (1) 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Spooner TH, Dyrud PE, Monson BK, Dixon GE, Robinson LD. Coronary artery bypass on the beating heart with the Octopus: a North American experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 66 (3) 1032-1035
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sergeant P, de Worm E, Meyns B, Wouters P. The challenge of departmental quality control in the reengineering towards off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2001; 20 (3) 538-543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Diegeler A, Doll N, Rauch T , et al. Humoral immune response during coronary artery bypass grafting: A comparison of limited approach, “off-pump” technique, and conventional cardiopulmonary bypass. Circulation 2000; 102 (19) (Suppl. 03) III95-III100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Diegeler A, Hirsch R, Schneider F , et al. Neuromonitoring and neurocognitive outcome in off-pump versus conventional coronary bypass operation. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 69 (4) 1162-1166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Nathoe HM, van Dijk D, Jansen EW , et al; Octopus Study Group. A comparison of on-pump and off-pump coronary bypass surgery in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2003; 348 (5) 394-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Widimsky P, Straka Z, Stros P , et al. One-year coronary bypass graft patency: a randomized comparison between off-pump and on-pump surgery angiographic results of the PRAGUE-4 trial. Circulation 2004; 110 (22) 3418-3423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Puskas JD, Williams WH, Mahoney EM , et al. Off-pump vs conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: early and 1-year graft patency, cost, and quality-of-life outcomes: a randomized trial. JAMA 2004; 291 (15) 1841-1849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Khan NE, De Souza A, Mister R , et al. A randomized comparison of off-pump and on-pump multivessel coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 2004; 350 (1) 21-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sellke FW, DiMaio JM, Caplan LR , et al; American Heart Association. Comparing on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: numerous studies but few conclusions: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association council on cardiovascular surgery and anesthesia in collaboration with the interdisciplinary working group on quality of care and outcomes research. Circulation 2005; 111 (21) 2858-2864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hannan EL, Wu C, Smith CR , et al. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: differences in short-term outcomes and in long-term mortality and need for subsequent revascularization. Circulation 2007; 116 (10) 1145-1152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Shroyer AL, Grover FL, Hattler B , et al; Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) Study Group. On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 (19) 1827-1837
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Møller CH, Perko MJ, Lund JT , 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 (4) 498-504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Lamy A, Devereaux PJ, Prabhakaran D , et al; CORONARY Investigators. Off-pump or on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting at 30 days. N Engl J Med 2012; 366 (16) 1489-1497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kuss O, Börgermann J. Do higher-risk patients benefit from off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting? Evidence from an ecologic analysis of randomized trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 142 (3) e117-e122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Houlind K, Kjeldsen BJ, Madsen SN , et al; DOORS Study Group. On-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in elderly patients: results from the Danish on-pump versus off-pump randomization study. Circulation 2012; 125 (20) 2431-2439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bougioukakis P, Kluegl SJ, Babin-Ebell J , et al. Presentation of a quality management program in off-pump coronary bypass surgery. Innovations (Phila) 2014; 9 (4) 317-321
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Diegeler A, Börgermann J, Kappert U , et al; GOPCABE Study Group. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting in elderly patients. N Engl J Med 2013; 368 (13) 1189-1198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Böning A, Diegeler A, Hilker M , et al; GOPCABE investigators. Preoperative atrial fibrillation and outcome in patients undergoing on-pump or off-pump coronary bypass surgery: lessons learned from the GOPCABE trial. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2015; 20 (1) 74-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Reents W, Hilker M, Börgermann J , et al. Acute kidney injury after on-pump or off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in elderly patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 98 (1) 9-14 , discussion 14–15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Diegeler A, Reents W, Zacher M. Off-pump or on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting. N Engl J Med 2013; 369 (2) 196-197
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Puskas JD, Martin J, Cheng DC , et al. ISMICS consensus conference and statements of randomized controlled trials of off-pump versus conventional coronary artery bypass surgery. Innovations (Phila) 2015; 10 (4) 219-229
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Lamy A, Devereaux PJ, Prabhakaran D , et al; CORONARY Investigators. Five-year outcomes after off-pump or on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting. N Engl J Med 2016; 375 (24) 2359-2368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar