Angiographic evaluation of graft patency in robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery: 8 year follow-up

Robot-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted coronary bypass (RCAB) surgery has been proposed as an alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (C-CABG) for managing coronary heart disease, but the evidence on its performance compared to other existing treatments is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess, through a systematic review of comparative studies, the safety and clinical effectiveness of RCAB compared to C-CABG and other minimally invasive approaches for the treatment of coronary heart disease.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of primary studies in the English-language literature comparing RCAB to existing treatment options (C-CABG, minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass [MIDCAB] and port-access coronary artery bypass [PA-CAB]) following Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate.

RESULTS

We reviewed 13 studies: 11 primary studies of RCAB (v. C-CABG in 7, v. MIDCAB in 3 and v. PA-CAB in 1) and 2 multicentre database studies (RCAB v. non-RCAB). The overall quality of the evidence was low. Most studies showed no significant benefit of RCAB over other treatments in a majority of outcome variables. Meta-analyses showed that RCAB had lower rates of pneumonia or wound infection than C-CABG, and shorter intensive care unit length of stay than C-CABG or MIDCAB. Individual studies showed that RCAB had some better outcomes than C-CABG (ventilation time, transfusion, postoperative pain, hospital length of stay) or MIDCAB (transfusion, postoperative pain, time to return to normal activities, physical functioning and hospital length of stay). The review of the database studies showed that RCAB was statistically superior to non-RCAB approaches in postoperative pain, renal failure, transfusion, reoperation for bleeding, stroke and hospital length of stay; however, the difference between the 2 groups in several of these outcomes was small.

CONCLUSION

Although the findings from this review of comparative studies of RCAB appear promising and suggest that RCAB may offer some benefits to patients, in the absence of randomized controlled trials, these results should be interpreted cautiously.

Graft Patency after Robotically Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

Objective

With advances in robotic instrumentation and technology, both robotically assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RMIDCAB) and totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB) have been widely used over the past 20 years. Graft patency is the most important outcome in coronary bypass surgery and is associated with long-term prognosis. In this article we reviewed all experts’ studies in the field of robotic assisted coronary artery bypass and investigated graft patency in patients who underwent RMIDCAB or TECAB.

Methods

We performed a literature search in PubMed from 1999 to 2018 using the terms “Robotic” and “Coronary bypass” and/or “Minimally invasive” and/or “Totally endoscopic.” Of the articles found, studies investigating graft patency were specifically selected.

Results

In 33 articles, a total of 4,000 patients underwent robotic assisted coronary artery bypass surgery either by a RMIDCAB (2,396) or by a TECAB (1,604) approach. The graft patency was assessed by invasive angiography or computed tomographic angiography in all studies. The mean graft patency at early (<1 month), midterm (<5 years), and long-term (>5 years) follow-up was 97.7%, 96.1%, and 93.2% in RMIDCAB and 98.8%, 95.8%, and 93.6% in TECAB, respectively.

Conclusions

The graft patency of robotic assisted coronary artery bypass was equivalent to reported outcomes of the conventional approach. These results should encourage the adoption of robotic approaches in coronary bypass surgery.

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization has Improved Short-term Outcomes but Worse Mid-term Reintervention Rates Compared to CABG: A Propensity Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated short-term outcomes and mid-term survival and reintervention of hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting using a propensity score matched cohort.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease from 2007 to 2015 at a single institution. Patients were propensity matched 1:1 to receiving hybrid coronary revascularization or conventional bypass grafting by multivariate logistic regression on preoperative characteristics. Short-term outcomes were compared. Freedom from reintervention and death were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching selected 91 patients per group from 91 hybrid and 2601 conventionally revascularized patients. Hybrid revascularization occurred with surgery first in 56 (62%), percutaneous intervention first in 32 (35%), and simultaneously in 3 (3%) patients. Median intervals between interventions were 3 and 36 days for surgery first and percutaneous intervention first, respectively. Preoperative characteristics were similar. Patients undergoing hybrid revascularization had shorter postoperative length of stay (median = 4 vs 5 days, P < 0.001), less postoperative transfusion (13.2% vs 34.1%, P = 0.001), and respiratory failure (0% vs 6.6%, P = 0.03). They were more likely to be discharged home (93.4% vs 71.4%, P < 0.001), with no difference in 30-day mortality (P = 0.99), readmission (P = 0.23), or mid-term survival (P = 0.79). Hybrid revascularization was associated with earlier reintervention (P = 0.02). Hazard ratios for reintervention and patient mortality of hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional revascularization were 3.60 (95% confidence interval = 1.16-11.20) and 1.17 (95% confidence interval = 0.37-3.72), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite having favorable short-term outcomes and similar survival, hybrid coronary revascularization may be associated with earlier reintervention compared with conventional techniques.

A systematic review on robotic coronary artery bypass graft surgery

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has been performed over the past decade. Despite encouraging results from selected centres, there is a paucity of robust clinical data to establish its clinical safety and efficacy. The present systematic review aimed to identify all relevant clinical data on robotic CABG. The primary endpoint was perioperative mortality, and secondary endpoints included perioperative morbidities, anastomotic complications, and long-term survival.

METHODS

Electronic searches were performed using three online databases from their dates of inception to 2016. Relevant studies fulfilling the predefined search criteria were categorized according to surgical techniques as (I) totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass without cardiopulmonary bypass (TECAB off-pump); (II) TECAB on-pump; and robotic-assisted mammary artery harvesting followed by minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (robotic MIDCAB).

RESULTS

The present systematic review identified 44 studies that fulfilled the study selection criteria, including nine studies in the TECAB off-pump group and 16 studies in the robotic MIDCAB group. Statistical analysis reported a pooled mortality of 1.7% for the TECAB off-pump group and 1.0% for the robotic MIDCAB group. Intraoperative details such as the number and location of grafts performed, operative times and conversion rates, as well as postoperative secondary endpoints such as morbidities, anastomotic complications and long-term outcomes were also summarized for both techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of technical, logistic and cost-related issues continue to hinder the popularization of the robotic CABG procedure. Current clinical evidence is limited by a lack of randomized controlled trials, heterogeneous definition of techniques and complications, as well as a lack of robust clinical follow-up with routine angiography. Nonetheless, the present systematic review reported acceptable perioperative mortality rates for selected patients at specialized centres. These results should be considered as a useful benchmark for future studies, until further data is reported in the form of randomized trials.

Trends in Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts: A Study of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database, 2006 to 2012

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology is one of the most recent technological changes in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) operations. The current analysis was conducted to identify trends in the use and outcomes of robotic-assisted CABG (RA-CABG).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database between 2006 and 2012. Patient and site-level characteristics were compared between traditional CABG and RA-CABG. Operative death, postoperative length of stay, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The number of sites using RA-CABG remained relatively constant during the study period (from 148 in 2006 to 151 in 2012). The volume of RA-CABG as a percentage of the total CABG procedures increased slightly from 0.59% (872 RA-CABG of 127,717 total CABG) in 2006 to 0.97% (1,260 RA-CABG of 97,249 total CABG) in 2012. The RA-CABG patients were significantly younger (64 vs 65 years, p < 0.0001), had fewer comorbidities, and had lower rates of cardiopulmonary bypass use (22.4% vs 80.4%, p < 0.0001). RA-CABG patients had significantly lower unadjusted major complication rates (10.2% vs 13.5%, p < 0.0001), including postoperative renal failure (2.2% vs 2.9%, p < 0.0001), and shorter length of stay (4 vs 5 days, p < 0.0001). The difference in operative death was not significant (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.30, p = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

RA-CABG use remained relatively stagnant during the analysis period despite lower rates of major perioperative complications and no difference in operative deaths. Additional analysis is needed to fully understand the role that robotic technology will play in CABG operations in the future.

Robotically assisted coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It remains uncertain as to whether robotically assisted coronary bypass surgery (RACBS) is superior to non-robotic procedures.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. Two review authors independently screened citations, assessed trial quality and performed data extraction.

RESULTS

Three trials met the inclusion criteria. None was randomized. Compared with non-robotic approaches, RACBS was associated with longer surgical times, shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays, higher extubation rates and lower odds for atrial fibrillation as well as myocardial infarction. There were no differences for the odds of stroke and mortality between the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although robotic-assisted coronary bypass appears to be promising, the study designs were not adequate and may have a high risk of selection bias. There is a need for randomized trials to corroborate the findings and to determine the long-term benefits of RACBS compared with traditional surgical approaches.