ObjectiveConventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or on-pump arrested heart CABG (ONCAB) is a standard and simple technique. However, adverse effects can occur due to the use of aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass. Performing off-pump CABG (OPCAB) aims to avoid these adverse effects but may result in incomplete revascularization. On-pump beating heart CABG (ONBHCAB) combines the benefits of both ONCAB and OPCAB. This study focuses on comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of different CABG techniques.MethodRetrospective observational cohort included 2,028 patients who underwent ONCAB, OPCAB, and ONBHCAB. The short-term outcomes including postoperative ischemic injury, hemodynamic functions, and adverse events were compared. The long-term outcomes were overall survival and the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Propensity score matching ensured comparability among the three patient groups.ResultsAfter matching, there were no differences in baseline characteristics. Regarding ischemic injury, OPCAB showed the lowest peak cardiac enzyme levels (all p≤0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the change of hemodynamic function (cardiac index) between the three groups (p = 0.158). Ten-year survival for OPCAB, ONBHCAB, and ONCAB were 80.5%, 75.9%, and 73.7%, respectively. OPCAB was associated with a significant reduction in mortality risk and MACE when compared to others (Mortality HR = 0.33, p = 0.001, MACE HR = 0.52, p = 0.004).ConclusionOPCAB implementation resulted in a lower occurrence of postoperative ischemic injury than ONCAB and ONBHCAB. No differences in postoperative hemodynamic function in all three techniques were observed. OPCAB respectively were preferable techniques beneficial for long-term outcomes.