Minimally Invasive coronary surgery compared to STernotomy coronary artery bypass grafting: The MIST trial

Minimally Invasive CABG Is The Future: Pro

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains one of the most commonly performed operations worldwide. However, most CABG operations performed today are as invasive -apart from saphenous vein harvesting- as they were 50 years ago. While heart valve operations have become less invasive, CABG faces formidable challenges in doing so. Valve surgery requires a single surgical exposure to the valve intervened on, but less invasive CABG necessitates multiple surgical exposures to harvest internal thoracic artery conduits, source their inflow plus that of other grafts, and expose each coronary target to be grafted -including anterior, lateral, posterior, and inferior vessels. In this article, we rationalize why we believe that conventional CABG remains unduly invasive, associated with morbidity and prolonged recovery, and why less invasive CABG in its many forms, which we describe, represents a safe, practical, diffusible, and less invasive alternative to sternotomy CABG. Centers of excellence in coronary artery surgery should dedicate resources and expertise to developing high-quality, safe, durable, and advanced forms of lesser invasive CABG.

Long-term survival, cardiovascular, and functional outcomes after minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting in 566 patients

OBJECTIVE

Sternotomy has been the gold standard incision for surgical revascularization but may be associated with chronic pain and sternal malunion. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting allows for complete surgical revascularization through a small thoracotomy in selected patients. There is a paucity of long-term data, particularly functional outcomes, for patients who underwent minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting.

METHODS

Patients (N = 566) who underwent minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting at a single institution over a 17-year period were prospectively followed. The primary outcome was survival. At late follow-up, patients were contacted for a questionnaire on functional outcomes. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard model identified correlates of the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Clinical follow-up was complete for 100% of patients (mean 7.0 ± 4.4 years); a follow-up questionnaire was also completed for 83.9% (N = 427) of live patients. Fifty percent of patients (N = 283) had undergone multivessel grafting. At 12 years, survival for the entire cohort was 82.2% ± 2.6%. On late follow-up questionnaire, 12 patients (2.8%) had greater than Canadian Cardiovascular Score Class II angina and 19 patients (4.5%) had greater than New York Heart Association Class II symptoms. More than 98% of patients did not have pain related to the incision site. Cox proportional hazards analysis identified older age, peripheral vascular disease, prior myocardial infarction, left ventricular dysfunction, cancer in the past 5 years, intraoperative transfusion, and hybrid revascularization as correlates of mortality during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting is a safe and durable alternative to sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting in selected patients, with excellent short- and long-term outcomes, including for multivessel coronary disease. At long-term follow-up, the proportion of patients with significant symptoms and incisional pain was low.

Comparing the Effectiveness of Open and Minimally Invasive Approaches in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is an essential operation for patients who have severe coronary artery disease (CAD). Both open and minimally invasive CABG methods are used to treat CAD. This in-depth review looks at the latest research on the effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive CABG. The goal is to develop evidence-based guidelines that will improve surgical outcomes. This systematic review used databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science for a full electronic search. We adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and registered the results in the PROSPERO. The search method used MeSH phrases and many different study types to find papers. After removing duplicate publications and conducting a screening process, we collaboratively evaluated the full texts to determine their inclusion. We then extracted data, including diagnosis, the total number of patients in the study, clinical recommendations from the studies, surgical complications, angina recurrence, hospital stay duration, and mortality rates. Many studies that investigate open and minimally invasive CABG methods have shown that the type of surgery can have a large effect on how well the patient recovers and how well the surgery works overall. While there are limited data on the possible advantages of minimally invasive CABG, a conclusive comparison with open CABG is still dubious. Additional clinical trials are required to examine a wider spectrum of patient results.

Is minimally invasive multi-vessel off-pump coronary surgery as safe and effective as MIDCAB?

Introduction

The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery has been confirmed in numerous reports. However, minimally invasive multi-vessel off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) has lower uptake and has not yet gained widespread adoption. The study aimed to investigate the non-inferiority of MICS CABG to MIDCAB in long-term follow-up for several clinical outcomes, including angina pectoris, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and overall survival.

Methods

This is an observational, retrospective, single center study of 1,149 patients who underwent either MIDCAB (n = 626) or MICS CABG (n = 523) at our institution between 2007 and 2018. The left internal thoracic artery and portions of the radial artery and saphenous vein were used for the patients' single-, double-, or triple-vessel revascularization procedures. We used gradient boosted propensity-score estimation to account for possible interactions between variables. After propensity-score adjustment, the two groups were similar in terms of preoperative demographics and risk profile. Long-term follow-up (mean 5.87, median 5.6 years) was available for 1,089 patients (94.8%).

Results

A total of 626, 454 and 69 patients underwent single, double and triple coronary revascularization, respectively. The long-term outcomes of freedom from angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, and revascularization rate were similar between the two groups. During follow-up, there were 123 deaths in the MIDCAB group and 96 in the MICS CABG group. The 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 97%, 92%, 85%, and 69% for the MIDCAB group and 97%, 93%, 89%, and 74% for the MICS CABG group, respectively. The hazard ratio of overall survival for patients with two or more bypass grafts compared to those with one bypass graft was 1.190 (p-value = 0.234, 95% CI: 0.893-1.586). This indicates that there was no significant difference in survival between the two groups. Furthermore, if we consider a hazard ratio of 1.2 to be clinically non-relevant, surgery with two or more grafts was significantly non-inferior to surgery with just one graft (p-value = 0.0057).

Conclusion

In experienced hands, MICS CABG is a safe and effective procedure. Survival and durability are comparable with MIDCAB.

Sternum-sparing multivessel coronary surgery as a routine procedure: Midterm results of total coronary revascularization via left anterior thoracotomy

Objective

A sternum-sparing approach of minimally invasive total coronary revascularization via left anterior thoracotomy demonstrated promising early outcomes in unselected patients with coronary artery multivessel disease. Follow-up data are still missing.

Methods

From November 2019 to September 2023, coronary artery bypass grafting via left anterior minithoracotomy on cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic cardiac arrest was performed as a routine procedure in 392 consecutive, nonemergency patients (345 men; 67.0 ± 9.9 years; range, 32-88 years). All patients had multivessel coronary artery disease (77.6% 3-vessel-disease, 22.4% 2-vessel-disease, and 32.9% left main stenosis). Patients at old age (older than a 80 years, 12.5%), with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <30%, 7.9%), diabetes mellitus (34.9%), massive obesity (body mass index > 35, 8.9%), and chronic lung disease (17.1%) were included. Mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score was 2.9 ± 2.8. Mean midterm follow-up (100%) was 15.2 ± 10.7 months (range, 0.1-39.5 months).

Results

Left internal thoracic artery (99.0%), radial artery (70.4%), and saphenous vein grafts (57.4%) were used, and 70.4% of patients received at least 2 arterial grafts. A total of 3.0 ± 0.8 anastomoses (range, 2-5 anastomoses) per patient were performed to revascularize the territories of left anterior descending (98.7%), circumflex (91.6%), and right coronary (70.9%) artery. Complete anatomical revascularization was achieved in 95.1%. At follow-up, all-cause-mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke was 3.1%, 1.5%, 5.4%, and 0.7%, respectively. Overall major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events rate was 8.7%.

Conclusions

This is the first report of midterm follow-up after routine sternum-sparing total coronary revascularization via left anterior thoracotomy for multivessel coronary artery disease with a high rate of multiple arterial grafting and complete anatomical revascularization. Outcome was favorable and similar to that of contemporary conventional coronary artery bypass grafting.

Minimally Invasive Isolated and Hybrid Surgical Revascularization for Multivessel Coronary Disease: A Single-Center Long-Term Follow-Up

INTRODUCTION

Some evidence suggests that surgical minimally invasive (MIDCAB) and hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) are safe and potentially effective at short-term follow-up. Data on long-term outcomes are more limited and inconclusive.

METHODS

Between February 2013 and December 2023, a total of 1997 patients underwent surgical coronary artery revascularization at our institution, of whom, 92 (4.7%) received left anterior mini-thoracotomy access (MIDCAB), either isolated (N = 78) or in combination with percutaneous coronary intervention (N = 14, HCR group).

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 75 months (range 3.1: 149 months), cardiac mortality was 0% while overall mortality was 3%, with one in-hospital mortality and two additional late deaths. Conversion to sternotomy happened in two patients (2.1%), and surgical re-explorations occurred in five patients (4.6%), of whom three for bleeding and two for graft failure. All patients received left internal mammary (LIMA) to left anterior descending artery (LAD) grafting (100%). In the HCR group, 10 patients (72%) showed percutaneous revascularization (PCI) after MIDCAB, showing PCI on a mean of 1.6 ± 0.6 vessels and implanting 2.1 ± 0.9 drug-eluting stents.

CONCLUSIONS

MIDCAB, in isolation or in association with hybrid coronary revascularization, is associated with encouraging short- and long-term results in selected patients discussed within a dedicated heart-team.

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.

Less Invasive and Hybrid Surgical/Interventional Coronary Disease Management: The Future Is Now

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has evolved to become the criterion standard in elective revascularisation for coronary artery disease (CAD), particularly in patients with complex or multivessel CAD, left main involvement, diabetes mellitus, or left ventricular dysfunction. Despite the superiority of CABG in patients with the most advanced forms of CAD, a standard CABG operation, through a median sternotomy and with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass, carries well recognised challenges. In this article, we describe newer approaches, such as off-pump CABG, minimally invasive bypass grafting, robotic CABG, and hybrid coronary revascularisation, which we consider as necessary ways to minimise invasion, reduce recovery time, provide the benefits of arterial grafting to more patients, and offer alternatives to mitigate the adverse effects of conventional sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass.

Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Evidence-Based Practice

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains a pivotal cornerstone, offering established symptomatic alleviation and prognostic advantages for patients grappling with complex multivessel and left main coronary artery diseases. Despite the lucid guidance laid out by contemporary guidelines regarding the choice between CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a notable hesitation persists among certain patients, characterized by psychological reservations, knowledge gaps, or individual beliefs that sway their inclination toward surgical intervention. This comprehensive review critically synthesizes the prevailing guidelines, modern practices, and outcomes pertaining to CABG surgery, delving into an array of techniques and advancements poised to enhance both short-term and enduring surgical outcomes. The exploration encompasses advances in on-pump and off-pump procedures, conduit selection strategies encompassing the bilateral utilization of internal mammary artery and radial artery conduits, meticulous graft evaluation methodologies, and the panorama of minimally invasive approaches, including those assisted by robotic technology. Furthermore, the review navigates the terrain of hybrid coronary revascularization, shedding light on the pivotal roles of shared decision-making and the heart team in shaping treatment pathways. As a comprehensive compendium, this review not only navigates the intricate landscape of CABG surgery but also aligns it with contemporary practices, envisioning its trajectory within the evolving currents of healthcare dynamics.

Early Results of Total Coronary Revascularization via Left Anterior Thoracotomy

BACKGROUND

Avoidance of sternotomy while preserving complete revascularization remains challenging in multivessel coronary disease. Technical issues and in-hospital outcomes of total coronary revascularization via a small left anterior thoracotomy (TCRAT) in nonselected patients with multivessel disease are reported.

METHODS

From November 2019 to September 2021, coronary artery bypass grafting via left anterior minithoracotomy on cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic cardiac arrest was performed in 102 patients (92 males; 67 ± 10 [42-87] years). Slings were placed around ascending aorta, left pulmonary veins, and inferior vena cava for exposure of lateral and inferior ventricular wall. All patients had multivessel coronary disease (three-vessel disease: n = 72; two-vessel disease: n = 30; left main stenosis: n = 44). We included patients at old age (> 80 years, 14.7%), with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction < 30%, 6.9%), massive obesity (body mass index > 35, 11.6%), and at increased risk (EuroSCORE II > 4, 15.7%).

RESULTS

Left internal thoracic artery (n = 101), radial artery (n = 83), and saphenous vein (n = 39) grafts were used for total (61.8%) or multiple (19.6%) arterial grafting. A total of 323 distal anastomoses (3.2 ± 0.7 [2-5] per patient) were performed to revascularize left anterior descending (100%), circumflex (91.2%), and right coronary artery (67.7%). Complete revascularization was achieved in 95.1%. In-hospital mortality was 2.9%, stroke rate was 1.0%, myocardial infarction rate was 2.9%, and repeat revascularization rate was 2.0%.

CONCLUSION

This novel surgical technique allows complete coronary revascularization in the broad majority of multivessel disease patients without sternotomy. TCRAT can be introduced into clinical routine safely. Long-term results remain to be investigated.

Minimal-Access Coronary Revascularization: Past, Present, and Future

Minimal-access cardiac surgery appears to be the future. It is increasingly desired by cardiologists and demanded by patients who perceive superiority. Minimal-access coronary artery revascularisation has been increasingly adopted throughout the world. Here, we review the history of minimal-access coronary revascularization and see that it is almost as old as the history of cardiac surgery. Modern minimal-access coronary revascularization takes a variety of forms-namely minimal-access direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB), hybrid coronary revascularisation (HCR), and totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB). It is noteworthy that there is significant variation in the nomenclature and approaches for minimal-access coronary surgery, and this truly presents a challenge for comparing the different methods. However, these approaches are increasing in frequency, and proponents demonstrate clear advantages for their patients. The challenge that remains, as for all areas of surgery, is demonstrating the superiority of these techniques over tried and tested open techniques, which is very difficult. There is a paucity of randomised controlled trials to help answer this question, and the future of minimal-access coronary revascularisation, to some extent, is dependent on such trials. Thankfully, some are underway, and the results are eagerly anticipated.

Sternal-Sparing Surgical Options in Combined Aortic Valve and Coronary Artery Disease: Proof of Concept

OBJECTIVE

The standard management of concomitant aortic valve (AV) and coronary artery disease has been coronary artery bypass and AV replacement (AVR). With the advent of minimally invasive options, many isolated lesions have been successfully managed using a sternal-sparing approach. In our institution, patients with isolated AV disease are offered minimally invasive surgical or transcatheter AVR, and those with isolated coronary artery disease are routinely managed with robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass or percutaneous coronary intervention. Various combinations of these techniques can be used when a sternal-sparing posture is desired because of patient risk or preference. The aim of this study was to review the outcomes in patients with combined AV and coronary disease who were managed using sternal-sparing approaches.

METHODS

We reviewed the records of 10 patients in our minimally invasive surgical database who presented with concomitant AV and coronary artery disease and underwent combined sternal-sparing management of these 2 lesions using various combinations of minimally invasive approaches.

RESULTS

Four patients had totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass and minimally invasive AVR at the same time, 2 patients underwent transcatheter AVR followed by totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass, and 4 patients underwent minimally invasive AVR with percutaneous coronary intervention. There was no 30-day mortality. The duration of postoperative surgical hospital stay was 3.1 ± 0.9 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Sternal-sparing approaches in combined AV and coronary artery disease are feasible with patient-specific treatment selection of minimally invasive techniques.

Current concepts in coronary artery revascularisation

Coronary artery revascularisation can be performed surgically or percutaneously. Surgery is associated with higher procedural risk and longer recovery than percutaneous interventions, but with long-term reduction of recurrent cardiac events. For many patients with obstructive coronary artery disease in need of revascularisation, surgical or percutaneous intervention is indicated on the basis of clinical and anatomical reasons or personal preferences. Medical therapy is a crucial accompaniment to coronary revascularisation, and data suggest that, in some subsets of patients, medical therapy alone might achieve similar results to coronary revascularisation. Most revascularisation data are based on prevalently White, non-elderly, male populations in high-income countries; robust data in women, older adults, and racial and other minorities, and from low-income and middle-income countries, are urgently needed.

Predictors and outcomes of conversion to sternotomy in minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting

Background

This study aims to investigate the risk factors and surgical outcomes of conversion to median sternotomy in minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting.

Methods

Between January 2017 and July 2022, a total of 274 patients (246 males, 28 females; mean age: 57.0±9.6 years; range, 33 to 81 years) who underwent conventional (n=116) or robot-assisted (n=158) minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome measure of the study was conversion to median sternotomy, and the secondary outcome measures were operative mortality, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay.

Results

Conversion to median sternotomy was required in 26 (9.5%) patients. The most common cause of conversion was intramyocardial left anterior descending artery (27.0%). Among preoperative and operative characteristics, only age was statistically significant risk factor for conversion to sternotomy (odds ratio=1.06, p=0.01). Operative mortality occurred in one patient (0.36%) patient in the entire cohort. The length of intensive care unit and hospital stay was significantly longer in patients requiring conversion to median sternotomy (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively). There was no significant difference in other postoperative outcomes between the two groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion

Intramyocardial left anterior descending artery is the most common reason for conversion to sternotomy, and older age increases the risk of conversion. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting can be performed with satisfactory results, even if it requires conversion to sternotomy.

[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.

Comparing clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes undergoing coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention in real world practice in Iranian population

Background

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is generally regarded as one the treatment options for coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with diabetes. In recent years, with the advent of drug-eluting stents (DES), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was introduced as a suitable alternative for CABG. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) during mid-term period in patients with diabetes treated with 2 revascularization strategies.

Methods

This historical cohort study was conducted on 750 consecutives patients with diabetes in a single cardiovascular center from July 2009 to March 2012 in Iran. We included previously known case of DM treated with antidiabetic medications (with or without end organ damage) and patient with preoperational evaluation FBS test > 126 (not on the day of the surgery) who were revascularized by 2 strategies. We excluded those patients whose follow-up was not possible.

Results

Finally, out of 697 eligible patients, 355 patients underwent a CABG and 342 underwent a PCI: 53 patients were lost to follow-up (27 in CABG and 26 in PCI groups). The mean follow-up time was 900.68 ± 462.03 days in the CABG and 782.60 ± 399.05 in PCI groups. There were 17 (9.13%) cardiac deaths in the CABG group and 8 (4.45%) in the PCI group; this difference was not significant (P = .11). There was 14 (7.58%) cerebrovascular accident in the CABG group and 4 (2.31%) in the PCI group; this difference was significant (P = .04). Moreover, the frequency of the target vessel revascularization in the CABG and PCI groups was 6 (3.32%) and 31 (17.11%) (P < .001), respectively. Myocardial infarction in the CABG group was 5 (2.77%) and 14 (7.86%) in the PCI group (P = .009). Finally, the frequency of MACCE in the CABG and PCI groups was 41(20.70%) and 47(24.16%) respectively; this difference was not statistically significant (P = .195).

Conclusion

Patients with CABG in this study experienced more CVA, while the frequency of TVR and non-fatal MI was higher in the PCI arm.

Myocardial Revascularization Surgery: JACC Historical Breakthroughs in Perspective

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was introduced in the 1960s as the first procedure for direct coronary artery revascularization and rapidly became one of the most common surgical procedures worldwide, with an overall total of more than 20 million operations performed. CABG continues to be the most common cardiac surgical procedure performed and has been one of the most carefully studied therapies. Best CABG techniques, optimal bypass conduits, and appropriate patient selection have been rigorously tested in landmark clinical trials, some of which have resolved controversy and most of which have stoked further debate and trials. The evolution of CABG cannot be properly portrayed without presenting it in the context of the parallel development of percutaneous coronary intervention. In this Historical Perspective, we a provide a broad overview of the history of coronary revascularization with a focus on the foundations, evolution, best evidence, and future directions of CABG.

Advances in revascularization of the left coronary artery

Ischaemic heart disease is the most common cardiovascular disease worldwide, and it contributes to a significant source of morbidity and mortality internationally. It can be asymptomatic for many years and present suddenly with acute coronary syndrome or can be progressive with angina and eventual acute myocardial infarction. Diseases of the left coronary system can be drastic and fatal if not managed correctly. With ongoing increase in the practice of percutaneous intervention; patient demographics for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting surgery have more risk factors than before. Conventional bypass surgery has also evolved to include minimally invasive and hybrid techniques. Although some evidence supports each approach, controversies remain.

Review of Contemporary Techniques for Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularization

Minimally invasive coronary revascularization techniques aim to avoid median sternotomy with its associated complications, while facilitating recovery and maintaining the benefits of surgical revascularization. The 3 most common procedures are minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting, totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass, and hybrid coronary revascularization. For a variety of reasons, including cost and technical difficulty, not many centers are routinely performing minimally invasive coronary revascularization. Nevertheless, many studies have assessed the safety and efficacy of each of these procedures in different clinical contexts. Thus far results have been promising, and with the evolution of procedural techniques, these approaches have the potential to redefine coronary revascularization in the future. This review highlights the current state of minimally invasive coronary revascularization techniques by exploring their benefits, identifying barriers to their adoption, and discussing future potential paradigms.

Minimally Invasive vs Open Coronary Surgery: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Cost and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Limited multi-institutional data evaluating minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) outcomes have raised concern for increased resource utilization compared with standard sternotomy. The purpose of this study was to assess short-term outcomes and resource utilization with MICS CABG in a propensity-matched regional cohort.

METHODS

Isolated CABG patients (2012-2019) were extracted from a regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Patients were stratified by MICS CABG vs open CABG via sternotomy, propensity-score matched 1:2 to balance baseline differences, and compared by univariate analysis.

RESULTS

Of 26,255 isolated coronary artery bypass graft patients, 139 MICS CABG and 278 open CABG patients were well balanced after matching. There was no difference in the operative mortality rate (2.2% open vs 0.7% MICS CABG, P = .383) or major morbidity (7.9% open vs 7.2% MICS CABG, P = .795). However, open CABG patients received more blood products (22.2% vs 12.2%, P = .013), and had longer intensive care unit (45 vs 30 hours, P = .049) as well as hospital lengths of stay (7 vs 6 days, P = .005). Finally, median hospital cost was significantly higher in the open CABG group ($35,011 vs $27,906, P < .001) compared with MICS CABG.

CONCLUSIONS

Open CABG via sternotomy and MICS CABG approaches are associated with similar, excellent perioperative outcomes. However, MICS CABG was associated with fewer transfusions, shorter length of stay, and ∼$7000 lower hospital cost, a superior resource utilization profile that improves patient care and lowers cost.

Techniques and approaches for revascularisation of left heart coronary diseases

Coronary artery disease and its associated clinical sequelae are a significant medical burden to clinicians and patients. Severe coronary artery disease presenting in the context of acute myocardial ischaemia, or stable plaques causing chronic symptoms despite best conservative and pharmacological intervention, are often amenable to further intervention such as coronary artery bypass grafting. This procedure has been extensively compared to newer and less invasive techniques, such as percutaneous coronary intervention, and other minimally invasive procedures such as robotic or endoscopic techniques. This review summarises the current evidence on revascularisation of the left coronary artery system, with particular emphasis on key clinical endpoints of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and repeat revascularisation.

Evaluation of Serratus Anterior Plane Block for Pain Relief in Patients Undergoing MIDCAB Surgery

Objective

The minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery is associated with severe chest pain in the first 2 to 3 postoperative days; this may delay the patient recovery. In this randomized controlled trial we evaluated the role of serratus anterior plane (SAP) block for postoperative pain relief in patients undergoing MIDCAB surgery.

Methods

Patients undergoing MIDCAB surgery were randomized into 2 groups of 25 each; SAP group received 20 mL of 0.2% ropivacaine with 1 μg/mL fentanyl as bolus followed by infusion at 8 mL/h; control group received saline for both bolus and infusion. Primary outcome measure was postoperative pain when supine, and during deep inspiration, coughing, and patient movement; secondary outcome measures were requirement of postoperative intravenous fentanyl and opioid-related side effects. All patients were followed at 6-hourly intervals for 48 hours in the postoperative period. Results were analyzed by the Student’s t -test, χ2test, Mann–Whitney U-test and Kruskall–Wallis test. A P-value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

The 2 groups were similar with respect to patient characteristics. Static and dynamic pain visual analog scale scores were significantly reduced in the SAP group as compared to the control group at most of the time points of assessment ( P < 0.05). Patient-controlled fentanyl requirements were reduced in the SAP group as compared to control group on the second postoperative day ( P < 0.05).

Conclusions

SAP block reduced the postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements in patients undergoing MIDCAB surgery.

Effects of dexmedetomidine on cerebral oxygen saturation and postoperative cognitive function in elderly patients undergoing minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the effects of dexmedetomidine on cerebral oxygen saturation [Sct(O2)] and postoperative cognitive function in elderly patients undergoing minimally invasive coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

METHODS

Sixty elderly patients who received minimally invasive coronary artery bypass graft surgery were randomly equally divided into dexmedetomidine group (group D) and control group (group N). The patients in group D were pumped with 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine for 15 min before incision, followed by continuous pumping at 0.3-0.5 μg/(kg·h) till the end of the operation. The patients in group N received same dose of normal saline during the operation. Sct(O2) was monitored at pre-induction (T0), post-induction (T1), 30 min (T2) after single-lung ventilation, and after surgery (T3). Mini-mental state examination (MMSE) was used to assess the cognitive function at 1 day before, 72 hour and 7 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Sct(O2) level in group D was significantly higher than that in group N at T2 (P < 0.05). Sct(O2) level was statistically lower at T2 than that at T0, T1 and T3 in the same group N (P < 0.05). At 72 h and 7d after operation, the incidence of cognitive dysfunction in group D was markedly lower than that in group N (P < 0.05), the MMSE score in group D was markedly higher than those in group N, but was significantly lower than that before surgery (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine can alleviate the decrease of Sct(O2) during single-lung ventilation, improve postoperative cognitive function, and reduce the incidence of POCD in elderly patients with minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery.