Aortic Clamping Strategy During Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Partial or Single? A Propensity-Matched Analysis.
- 1Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul 34480, Turkey.
Abstract
Background
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between partial aortic clamping (PAC) and single aortic clamping (SAC) techniques during isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and their impact on clinical outcomes.Methods
Between 2022 and 2026, 974 patients who underwent isolated CABG were retrospectively evaluated. The study cohort was initially divided based on the operative technique into Group A (PAC, n = 626) and Group B (SAC, n = 348). To account for baseline clinical disparities, a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed, yielding two balanced subgroups: Group C (PAC, n = 218) and Group D (SAC, n = 218).Results
Following propensity matching, the median cross-clamp (XCL) time was significantly lower in the PAC group compared to the SAC group (73 min vs. 100 min, p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between the balanced groups regarding postoperative exploration, cerebrovascular accidents, continuous renal replacement therapy requirements, or all-cause in-hospital mortality. The incidence of NOAF was significantly lower in the PAC group than in the SAC group [24 (11.0%) vs. 49 (22.5%), p = 0.001; absolute risk difference 11.5%, 95% CI 4.5-18.4%; number needed to treat ≈9]. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the SAC technique as an independent predictor of NOAF (p = 0.001, OR= 2.531 [95% CI, 1.442-4.441]).Conclusions
This study demonstrated no significant differences between the PAC and SAC techniques regarding postoperative bleeding, blood product utilization, and major neurological or renal complications. However, the PAC strategy was associated with a significantly lower incidence of NOAF compared to the SAC technique.
Related
- Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Study
- Outcomes and Challenges of Redo Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Propensity-Matched Comparative Analysis
- Association between rhythm control strategy and clinical outcomes in postoperative atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting: a retrospective cohort study
- Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (MICS-CABG) Versus Conventional Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (OPCAB): A Single-Center Analysis of Early Outcomes and Institutional Experience
- Age-Normalized Baseline Renal Function: A Simple Risk Marker in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
BibTeX
@article{beyazal2026aortic,
title = {{Aortic Clamping Strategy During Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Partial or Single? A Propensity-Matched Analysis.}},
author = {Osman Fehmi Beyazal and Zeki Temiztürk and Mustafa Karaarslan and Cemalettin Aydın and Mehmet Okan Donbaloğlu and Hasan Tezcan and Eylem Özköksal Kurtdişi and Nihan Kayalar and Mehmed Yanartaş},
journal = {Journal of cardiovascular development and disease},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3390/jcdd13100502},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42930898},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Aortic Clamping Strategy During Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Partial or Single? A Propensity-Matched Analysis.
AU - Osman Fehmi Beyazal
AU - Zeki Temiztürk
AU - Mustafa Karaarslan
AU - Cemalettin Aydın
AU - Mehmet Okan Donbaloğlu
AU - Hasan Tezcan
AU - Eylem Özköksal Kurtdişi
AU - Nihan Kayalar
AU - Mehmed Yanartaş
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/07
JO - Journal of cardiovascular development and disease
DO - 10.3390/jcdd13100502
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42930898
AB - Background This study aimed to investigate the relationship between partial aortic clamping (PAC) and single aortic clamping (SAC) techniques during isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and their impact on clinical outcomes.Methods Between 2022 and 2026, 974 patients who underwent isolated CABG were retrospectively evaluated. The study cohort was initially divided based on the operative technique into Group A (PAC, n = 626) and Group B (SAC, n = 348). To account for baseline clinical disparities, a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed, yielding two balanced subgroups: Group C (PAC, n = 218) and Group D (SAC, n = 218).Results Following propensity matching, the median cross-clamp (XCL) time was significantly lower in the PAC group compared to the SAC group (73 min vs. 100 min, p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed between the balanced groups regarding postoperative exploration, cerebrovascular accidents, continuous renal replacement therapy requirements, or all-cause in-hospital mortality. The incidence of NOAF was significantly lower in the PAC group than in the SAC group [24 (11.0%) vs. 49 (22.5%), p = 0.001; absolute risk difference 11.5%, 95% CI 4.5-18.4%; number needed to treat ≈9]. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified the SAC technique as an independent predictor of NOAF (p = 0.001, OR= 2.531 [95% CI, 1.442-4.441]).Conclusions This study demonstrated no significant differences between the PAC and SAC techniques regarding postoperative bleeding, blood product utilization, and major neurological or renal complications. However, the PAC strategy was associated with a significantly lower incidence of NOAF compared to the SAC technique.
SN - 2308-3425
ER -