Miniaturize CPB Versus Off-Pump Surgery

  • Francesco FormicaEmail author


Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) surgery has been accepted since the early 1990s when it was recognized that conventional extracorporeal circulation (cECC) is associated with a systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). SIRS is implicated in myocardial, renal, pulmonary, and neurologic dysfunction. For these reasons, the OPCABG technique is widely applied as the first choice in patients affected by acute or chronic renal dysfunction, obstructive pulmonary disease, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral obstructive arteriopathy [1]. However, although the effects of cECC are often subclinical, in some situations they can be responsible for worse outcomes in the early postoperative period. OPCABG has produced very encouraging results, and this technique has seen wide popularity during the last decade, with many cardiac centers performing OPCABG in more than 80 % of coronary patients [2]. However, the OPCABG technique presents some drawbacks, such as the significant learning curve for the surgeon, the high rate of incomplete revascularization in dilated and hypokinetic hearts due to the very difficult exposure of obtuse coronary marginal branches, and the lesser quality of the coronary anastomosis with an increased graft restenosis identified [3, 4]. Over the past 10 years, miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) has been developed with the aim of reducing the side effects of cECC, strengthening the advantages of cECC, and eliminating the drawbacks of OPCABG [5, 6]. Utilizing a shorter circuit without the interposition of a venous reservoir may offer several benefits, such as a reduction in hemodilution, coagulopathy, and SIRS. In other words, MECC should combine the best of cECC with the best of “off-pump” surgery. However, it is not yet clear whether the combination of these advantages is superior in MECC compared to OPCABG in terms of mortality and morbidity because multicenter randomized studies currently are lacking.


Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Centrifugal Pump Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation Incomplete Revascularization Significant Learning Curve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Kuss O, von Salviati B, Borgermann 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lytle BW, Sabik JF. On-pump and off-pump bypass surgery: tools for revascularization. Circulation. 2004;109:810–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shroyer AL, Grover FL, Hattler B, et al. On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1827–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hueb W, Lopes NH, Pereira AC, et al. Five-year follow-up of a randomized comparison between off-pump and on-pump stable multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting. The MASS III Trial. Circulation. 2010;122 suppl 1:S48–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fromes Y, Gaillarda D, Ponzio O, et al. Reduction of the inflammatory response following coronary bypass grafting with total minimal extracorporeal circulation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;22:527–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Remadi JP, Marticho P, Butoi I, et al. Clinical experience with the mini-extracorporeal circulation system: an evolution or a revolution? Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:2172–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Curtis N, Vohra HA, Ohri SK. Mini extracorporeal circuit cardiopulmonary bypass system: a review. Perfusion. 2010;25:115–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Formica F, Broccolo F, Martino A, et al. Myocardial revascularization with miniaturized extracorporeal circulation versus off pump: evaluation of systemic and myocardial inflammatory response in a prospective randomized study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:1206–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Puehler T, Haneya A, Philipp A, et al. Minimal extracorporeal circulation: an alternative for on-pump and off-pump coronary revascularization. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87:766–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beghi C, Nicolini F, Agostinelli A, et al. Mini-cardiopulmonary bypass system: results of a prospective randomised study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:1396–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Koivisto SP, Wistbacka JO, Rimpiläinen R, et al. Miniaturized versus conventional cardiopulmonary bypass in high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Perfusion. 2010;25:65–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Remadi JP, Rakotoarivelo Z, Marticho P, Benamar A. Prospective randomized study comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with the new mini-extracorporeal circulation Jostra System or with a standard cardiopulmonary bypass. Am Heart J. 2006;151:198e1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mazzei V, Nasso G, Salamone G, Castorino F, Tommasini A, Anselmi A. Prospective randomized comparison of coronary bypass grafting with minimal extracorporeal circulation system (MECC) versus off-pump coronary surgery. Circulation. 2007;116:1761–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stalder M, Gygax E, Immer FF, et al. Minimized cardiopulmonary bypass combined with a smart suction device: the future of cardiopulmonary bypass? Heart Surg Forum. 2007;3:E235–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ohata T, Mitsuno M, Yamamura M, et al. Minimal cardiopulmonary bypass attenuates neutrophil activation and cytokine release in coronary artery bypass grafting. J Artif Organs. 2007;10:92–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wippermann J, Albes JM, Hartrumpf M, et al. Comparison of ­minimally invasive closed circuit extracorporeal circulation with conventional cardiopulmonary bypass and with off-pump technique in CABG patients: selected parameters of coagulation and inflammatory system. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;28:127–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    El-Essawi A, Hajek T, Skorpil J, et al. A prospective randomised multicentre clinical comparison of a minimised perfusion circuit versus conventional cardiopulmonary bypass. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;38:91–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Anastasiadis K, Chalvatzoulis O, Antonitsis P, et al. Neurocognitive outcome after coronary artery bypass surgery using minimal versus conventional extracorporeal circulation: a randomised controlled pilot study. Heart. 2011;97:1082–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Puehler T, Haneya A, Philipp A, et al. Minimized extracorporeal circulation system in coronary artery bypass surgery: a 10-year single-center experience with 2243 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;39:459–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rimpilainen R, Biancari F, Wistbacka JO, et al. Outcome after ­coronary artery bypass surgery with miniaturized versus conventional cardiopulmonary bypass. Perfusion. 2008;23:361–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zangrillo A, Garozzo FA, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. Miniaturized ­cardiopulmonary bypass improves short-term outcome in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139:1162–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Raja SG, Berg GA. Impact of off-pump coronary artery bypass ­surgery on systemic inflammation: current best available evidence. J Card Surg. 2007;5:445–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Larmann J, Theilmeier G. Inflammatory response to cardiac surgery: cardiopulmonary bypass versus non-cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2004;18:425–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Royston D. The inflammatory response and extracorporeal circulation. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1997;11:341–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nannizzi-Alaimo L, Rubenstein MH, Alves VL, et al. Cardio­pulmonary bypass induces release of soluble CD40 ligand. Circulation. 2002;105:2849–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Antoniades C, Bakogiannis C, Tousoulis D, et al. The CD40/CD40 ligand system. Linking inflammation with atherothrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:669–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Antoniades C, Van-Assche T, Shirodaria C, et al. Preoperative sCD40L levels predict risk of atrial fibrillation after off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation. 2009;120:S170–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Munos E, Calderon J, Pillois X, et al. Beating-heart coronary artery bypass surgery with the help of mini extracorporeal circulation for very high-risk patients. Perfusion. 2011;2:123–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Boven WJ, Gerritsen WB, Waanders FG, et al. Mini extracorporeal circuit for coronary artery bypass grafting: initial clinical and biochemical results: a comparison with conventional and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafts concerning global oxidative stress and alveolar function. Perfusion. 2004;19:239–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Panday GF, Fischer S, Bauer A, et al. Minimal extracorporeal circulation and off-pump compared to conventional cardio- pulmonary bypass in coronary surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2009;9:832–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Filardo G, Grayburn PA, Hamilton C, et al. Comparing long-term survival between patients undergoing off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass graft operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:571–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ben-Gal Y, Stone GW, Smith CR, et al. On-pump versus off-pump surgical revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes: analysis from the acute catheterization and urgent intervention triage strategy trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:e33–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Reber D, Brouwer R, Buchwald D, et al. Beating-heart coronary artery bypass grafting with miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass results in a more complete revascularization when compared to off-pump grafting. Artif Organs. 2010;34:179–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ferraris VA, Ferraris SP, Saha SP, et al. Perioperative blood transfusion and blood conservation in cardiac surgery: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists clinical practice guideline. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:S27–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Whitson BA, Huddleston SJ, Savik K, Shumway SJ. Risk of adverse outcomes associated with blood transfusion after cardiac surgery depends on the amount of transfusion. J Surg Res. 2010;158(1):20–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Puskas JD, Thourani VH, Marshall JJ, et al. Clinical outcomes, angiographic patency, and resource utilization in 200 consecutive off-pump coronary bypass patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71:1477–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gerritsen WB, van Boven WJ, Wesselink RM, et al. Significant reduction in blood loss in patients undergoing minimal extra-­corporeal circulation. Transfus Med. 2006;16:329–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiac Surgery Clinic, Department of Surgical ScienceUniversity of Milano-Bicocca, San Gerardo HospitalMonzaItaly

Personalised recommendations