MICS CABG: a single-center experience of the first 100 cases

Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in a Low-Risk Asian Cohort: A Propensity-Score Matched Study

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) offers a new paradigm in coronary revascularization. This study aims to compare the outcomes of MICS CABG with those of conventional median sternotomy CABG (MS CABG) within a growing minimally invasive cardiac surgical program in Singapore.

METHODS

Propensity matching produced 111 patient pairs who underwent MICS CABG or MS CABG between January 2009 and February 2020 at the National University Heart Centre, Singapore. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery patients were matched to single- or double-graft MS CABG patients (Group 1). Multivessel MICS CABG patients were matched to MS CABG patients with equal number of grafts (Group 2).

RESULTS

Overall, MICS CABG patients experienced shorter postoperative length of stay (P<0.071). In Group 2, procedural duration (P<0.001) was longer among MICS CABG patients, but it did not translate to adverse postoperative events. Postoperative outcomes, including 30-day mortality, reopening for bleeding, new onset atrial fibrillation as well as neurological, pulmonary, renal, and infectious complications were comparable between MICS and MS CABG groups.

CONCLUSION

MICS CABG is a safe and effective approach for surgical revascularization of coronary artery disease and trends toward a reduction in hospital stay.

Multi-vessel coronary artery grafting: analyzing the minimally invasive approach and its safety

Introduction

At our institution, we perform off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) as a standard procedure. Moreover, patients with favorable coronary anatomy and condition are selected for minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS)-OPCAB. We retrospectively compared early outcomes, focusing on safety, between MICS-OPCAB and conventional off-pump techniques for multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Methods

From August 2017 to September 2022, 1,220 patients underwent multivessel coronary artery grafting at our institution. They were divided into the MICS-OPCAB group (MICS group = 163 patients) and the conventional OPCAB group (MS group = 1057 patients). Propensity score matching (1 : 1 ratio) was applied to the MICS-OPCAB and MS groups (149 patients per group) based on 23 preoperative clinical characteristics.

Results

After matching, there were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the groups. The MICS group had a lower total graft number (2.3 ± 0.6 vs. 2.9 ± 0.8, p < 0.001) and fewer distal anastomoses (2.7 ± 0.8 vs. 3.2 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, postoperative complications, and 30-day mortality. The MICS group had less drain output (MICS 350 ml [250-500], MS 450 ml [300-550]; p = 0.013). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant differences in postoperative MACCE (major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events)-free and survival rates between the groups (MACCE-free rate p = 0.945, survival rate p = 0.374).

Conclusion

With proper patient selection, MICS-OPCAB can provide good short to mid-term results, similar to those of conventional OPCAB.

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.