Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting: useful routine option for coronary revascularization in selected cases

The efficacy of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (mics cabg) for patients with coronary artery diseases and diabetes: a single center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CCABG) tends to cause severe complications in patients with comorbid Coronary Artery Diseases (CAD) and diabetes. On the other hand, the Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (MICS CABG) via transthoracic incision is associated with rapid recovery and reduced complications. Adding to the limited literature, this study compares CCABG and MICS CABG in terms of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Herein, 104 CCABG and MICS CABG cases (52 cases each) were included. The patients were recruited from the Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery Center, Anzhen Hospital, between January 2017 and December 2021 and were selected based on the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) model. The key outcomes included All-cause Death, Myocardial Infarction (MI), Cerebrovascular Events, revascularization, Adverse Wound Healing Events and one-year patency of the graft by coronary CTA.

RESULTS

Compared to CCABG, MICS CABG had longer surgical durations [4.25 (1.50) h vs.4.00 (1.13) h, P = 0.028], but showed a reduced intraoperative blood loss [600.00 (400.00) mL vs.700.00 (300.00) mL, P  = 0.032] and a lower secondary incision debridement and suturing rate (5.8% vs.19.2%, P = 0.038). In follow up, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in the cumulative Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Events (MACCEs) incidence (7.7% vs. 5.9%), all-cause mortality (0 vs. 0), MI incidence (1.9% vs. 2.0%), cerebral apoplexy incidence (5.8% vs. 3.9%), and repeated revascularization incidence (0 vs. 0) (P > 0.05). Additionally, coronary CTA results revealed that the two groups' one-year graft patency (94.2% vs. 90.2%, P = 0.761) showed no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

In patients with comorbid CAD and diabetes, MICS CABG and CCABG had comparable revascularization performances. Moreover, MICS CABG can effectively reduce, if not prevent, poor clinical outcomes/complications, including incision healing, sternal infection and prolonged length of stay in diabetes patients.

Can Minimally Invasive Multivessel Coronary Revascularization Be a Routine Approach?

BACKGROUND

Advancement in the field of cardiovascular surgery has emerged with various minimally invasive approaches for the treatment of multivessel coronary disease to improve outcomes and minimize the burden associated with conventional cardiac surgery. This study describes our routine technical approach and clinical experience of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass via left anterior minithoracotomy for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary lesions.

METHODS

Our experience includes 100 consecutive patients who were operated between July 2020 and April 2021. The left internal thoracic artery was harvested in all patients. Radial arterial grafts and saphenous vein grafts were harvested endoscopically. Patients were operated either under cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) with blood cardioplegia through left anterior minithoracotomy of 5 to 7 cm or off-pump via left anterolateral minithoracotomy.

RESULTS

We had single mortality (1%), no early postoperative myocardial infarction was observed. None of our patients was converted to sternotomy (0%). The mean number of bypass was 3.1 ± 0.8, the mean cross-clamping time was 78.1 ± 20.6 minutes, the mean CPB time was 153.2 ± 37.5 minutes, the average intubation time was 6.33 ± 11.29 hours, the mean intensive care unit stay was 1.62 ± 1.78 days, the mean hospital stay was 4.98 ± 3.01 days, the average total operation time was 4.20 ± 0.92 hours, and the average pleural drain was 393.8 ± 169.7 mL.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting via left anterior minithoracotomy can be routinely performed with safety and it is feasible, reproducible with a short learning curve. Further multicenter studies are needed for the standardization of our technique.

[Surgical Revascularization of the Myocardium by Minimally Invasive Access]

Median sternotomy is the Gold Standard access for surgical revascularization of the myocardium, but it is not free of complications, especially in patients with multiple comorbidities. Minimally invasive access offers the advantage of avoiding sternotomy, achieving a more accelerated postoperative recovery, with less hospital stay time and a higher level of satisfaction with quality of life. We present the case of a 49-year-old male patient, diabetic, hypertensive, smoker, with multiarterial coronary artery disease, very symptomatic, who underwent surgical revascularization by left mini-thoracotomy.

Minimally invasive off-pump anaortic coronary artery bypass (MACAB)

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass has enabled coronary artery bypass graft to compete with the appeal of less invasive percutaneous coronary procedures. Favorable results of coronary artery bypass surgery performed without the use of cardiopulmonary bypass and without touching the aorta (anOPCAB) have enabled the development and use of minimally invasive methods.

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2021, 112 patients underwent multivessel coronary bypass surgery performed using a minimally invasive method through a small thoracotomy in the left chest with off-pump, anaortic, and all-arterial grafts (Minimally Invasive Off-Pump Anaortic Coronary Artery Bypass [MACAB]). Patient data were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Eight series from the literature using the multivessel mini-OPCAB and MACAB technique were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Collectively, from the literature, 2729 patients underwent an average of 2.4 bypasses with an early mortality rate of 0.7% and a stroke rate of 0.16%. In our MACAB case series, 112 patients underwent an average of 2.9 bypasses with a mortality rate of 1.8% and a stroke rate of 0%.

CONCLUSION

MACAB can be performed safely by experienced surgeons and reduces neurological injury and surgical trauma and may be a good alternative for multivessel stenting. Simulation systems are essential for its dissemination, and teams dedicated to coronary surgery-with subspecialty expertise-are necessary to achieve good outcomes.

Comparing patient outcomes following minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery vs. coronary artery bypass grafting: a single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This present research was designed for comparing coronary artery disease (CAD) patient outcomes following minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (MICS) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

From 2014-2017, 679 CAD patients underwent MICS (n=281) or CABG (n=398) and were evaluated for the present study. Patient data were analyzed using 1:1 propensity score-matched assessment and a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model, and primary study achievements comprised major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, heart failure (HF), revascularization, and stroke. The median follow-up period was 2.68 years.

RESULTS

CABG patients exhibited a trend towards higher cumulative overall rates of MACCEs at 2 years (CABG: 6.2% vs. MICS: 3.8%) and 4 years (CABG: 9.3% vs. MICS: 7.6%) [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-5.39 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.687], although this difference was not significant. No significant differences in 2- or 4-year cardiac death rates were observed between groups (CABG: 3.5%, 5.6% vs. MICS 2.8%, 2.8%; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.03-1.81 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.160). Further, there existed no discrepancies in rates of MI (P=1.000), HF (adjusted HR: 4.76; 95% CI: 0.01-6.40 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.996), stroke (adjusted HR: 9.58; 95% CI: 0.11-25.24 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.320), or repeated revascularization (adjusted HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 0.01-7.21 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.631) when comparing these patient groups. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, patients that were male (adjusted HR: 5.28; 95% CI: 1.48-18.83; P=0.010) and cases with a history of previous MI epsiodes (adjusted HR: 3.20; 95% CI: 1.09-9.37; P=0.034) were found to be at a higher risk of MACCEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Follow-up data indicated that the MICS and CABG treatments could achieve similar outcomes.

Hybrid coronary revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review

Aim: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) for multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) integrates coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous intervention in a planned revascularization strategy. This systematic review summarizes the state of this art of this technique. Methods: Major databases searched until October 2021. Results: The available literature on HCR includes three randomized trials, ten meta-analysis and 27 retrospective studies. The greatest benefits are observed in patients with low-to-intermediate risk and less complex coronary anatomy; highly complex disease and the presence of risk factors favored conventional CABG in terms of adverse events and survival. Conclusion: HCR is an interesting approach for multivessel CAD but should not be considered a 'one-size-fits-all' procedure. Further studies will specify the subset of patients likely to benefit most from this hybrid approach.