Objective: At this consensus conference, we developed evidenceinformed consensus statements and recommendations on the practice of off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (OPCAB) by systematically reviewing and performing meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OPCAB and conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB). Methods: All RCTs of OPCAB versus CCAB through April 2013 were screened, and 102 relevant RCTs (19, 101 patients) were included in a systematic review and meta-analysis (15 RCTs of 9551 high-risk patients; and 87 RCTs of 9550 low-risk patients) in accordance with the Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. Consensus statements for the risks and benefits of OPCAB surgery in mortality, morbidity, and resource use were developed based on best available evidence. Results: Compared to CCAB, it is reasonable to perform OPCAB to reduce risks of stroke [class IIa, level of evidence (LOE) A], renal dysfunction/failure (class IIa, LOE A), blood transfusion (class I, LOE A), respiratory failure (class I, LOE A), atrial fibrillation (class I, LOE A), wound infection (class I, LOE A), ventilation time, and ICU and hospital length of stay (class I, LOE A). However, OPCAB may be associated with a reduced number of grafts performed (class I, LOE A) and with diminished graft patency (class IIa, LOE A, with increased coronary reintervention at 1 year and beyond (class IIa, LOE A), aswell as increased mortality at a median follow-up of 5 years (class IIb, LOE A). Conclusions: OPCAB compared with CCAB may improve outcomes in the short-term (stroke, renal dysfunction, blood transfusion, respiratory failure, atrial fibrillation, wound infection, ventilation time, and length of stay). However, over the longer-term, OPCAB may be associated with reduced graft patency, and increased risk of cardiac re-intervention and death.
