Comparative Analysis of Perioperative and Mid-Term Results of TECAB and MIDCAB for Revascularization of Anterior Wall

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.

A Nationwide Study of Clinical Outcomes After Robot-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Hybrid Revascularization in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

Robot-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB) surgery and hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) are minimally invasive alternative strategies to conventional coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with isolated left anterior descending (LAD) stenosis or multivessel coronary disease. We analyzed a large, multicenter data-set based on the Netherlands Heart Registration including all patients undergoing RA-MIDCAB.

METHODS

We included 440 consecutive patients who underwent RA-MIDCAB with the left internal thoracic artery to LAD between January 2016 and December 2020. A proportion of patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-LAD vessels (i.e., HCR). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at median follow-up of 1 year, which was subdivided into cardiac and noncardiac. Secondary outcomes included target vessel revascularization (TVR) at median follow-up as well as 30-day mortality, perioperative myocardial infarction, reoperation for bleeding or anastomosis-related problems, and in-hospital ischemic cerebrovascular accident (iCVA).

RESULTS

Among all patients, 91 (21%) underwent HCR. At median (IQR) follow-up of 19 (8 to 28) months, 11 patients (2.5%) had died. In 7 patients, the cause of death was defined as cardiac. TVR occurred in 25 patients (5.7%), of whom 4 underwent CABG and 21 underwent PCI. At 30-day follow-up, 6 patients (1.4%) had a perioperative myocardial infarction, of whom 1 died. One patient (0.2%) developed an iCVA, and 18 patients (4.1%) underwent reoperation for bleeding or anastomosis-related problems.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical outcomes of patients undergoing RA-MIDCAB or HCR in the Netherlands are good and promising when compared with the currently available literature.

Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularisation Surgery: A Focused Review of the Available Literature

Minimally invasive coronary revascularisation was originally developed in the mid 1990s as minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting is a less invasive approach compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to address targets in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD). Since then, MIDCAB has evolved with the adoption of a robotic platform and the possibility to perform multivessel bypass procedures. Minimally invasive coronary revascularisation surgery also allows for a combination between the benefits of CABG and percutaneous coronary interventions for non-LAD lesions – a hybrid approach. Hybrid coronary revascularisation results in fewer blood transfusions, shorter hospital stay, decreased ventilation times and patients return to work sooner when compared to conventional CABG. This article reviews the available literature, describes standard approaches and considers topics, such as limited access procedures, indications and patient selection, diagnostics and imaging, techniques, anastomotic devices, hybrid coronary revascularisation and outcome analysis.

Minimal access in cardiac surgery

Over the past two decades, minimally invasive cardiac surgery has been adopted with the use of endoscopic methods in 1990s and advanced robotic surgery since the early 2000s. In parallel with technological developments, surgical experience has increased and several cardiac operations are able to be performed using different mini-incisions. In this review, we discuss approaches to minimally invasive cardiac surgery, incisions, technical details, and suggestions.

'Is totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting compared with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting associated with superior outcomes in patients with isolated left anterior descending disease?'

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was ‘Is totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting compared with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting associated with superior outcomes in patients with isolated left anterior descending disease?’ Altogether more than 118 papers were found using the reported search, of which 4 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question, which included 2 prospective cohort studies and 2 retrospective observational studies. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers were tabulated. There is a significant variation within the MIDCAB and TECAB techniques amongst the studies-including the experience of the surgeon, use of cardiopulmonary bypass, patient selection, and target vessel grafting strategies-highlighting the complexity of comparing these two minimally invasive procedures. Operative times were comparable across all studies, with TECAB patients having higher transfusions rates and conversion rates to either a median sternotomy or MIDCAB procedure. Overall safety was comparable between the two cohort groups, with similar length of stay and 30-day mortality. However, the TECAB group were more likely to require re-operation for bleeding and reintervention for early revascularisation with greater total hospital costs than the MIDCAB patients. Based on the available evidence, we conclude that TECAB is associated with a higher rate of transfusions, conversion to median sternotomy or MIDCAB, early graft failure and reintervention compared to the MIDCAB approach. We advise caution in adopting a TECAB approach.

•

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting remains the gold standard for complex multi-vessel disease.

•

Demand for minimally invasive and robotic procedures is increasing.

•

Controversy remains regarding the optimal method for robotically assisted coronary grafting.

•

Overall safety is comparable between TECAB and MIDCAB.

•

TECAB is associated with a higher rate of early graft failure and reintervention.

Long-Term Clinical and Computed Tomography Angiographic Follow-up After Totally Endoscopic Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

OBJECTIVE

Totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting was shown to be feasible and safe, with excellent clinical and angiographic mid-term results. Data on long-term outcome are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the long-term rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and left internal mammary artery patency rate in patients undergoing arrested heart totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting.

METHODS

From 2001 to 2012, a total of 208 arrested heart-totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting patients were prospectively included. Mean ± SD age was 58.8 ± 9.4 years, and mean ± SD Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 0.5 ± 0.5%. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, re-percutaneous coronary intervention, re-coronary artery bypass graft, and target vessel revascularization. Left internal mammary artery patency was assessed using cardiac computed tomography and depicted according to the established Fitzgibbon classification. Mean ± SD follow-up was 6.9 ± 2.3 years.

RESULTS

At 1, 5, and 10 years, survival rate was 100%, 98.3%, and 95.8%, respectively. The freedom from clinical events at 1, 5, and 10 years were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (93.5%, 85.9%, and 83.0%), myocardial infarction (99.0%, 97.4%, and 95.9%), target vessel revascularization (96.0%, 94.3%, and 91.7%), re-percutaneous coronary intervention (94.5%, 91.6%, and 84.2%), and re-coronary artery bypass graft (100%, 99.5%, and 99.5%), respectively. Left internal mammary artery patency rate at 1, 5, and 10 years was 100%, 94.9%, and 88.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Arrested heart-totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting shows excellent clinical long-term results with a left internal mammary artery patency rate comparable with conventional coronary artery bypass graft at 10 years after surgery.

Assessment and pathophysiology of pain in cardiac surgery

Analysis of the problem of surgical pain is important in view of the fact that the success of surgical treatment depends largely on proper pain management during the first few days after a cardiosurgical procedure. Postoperative pain is due to intraoperative damage to tissue. It is acute pain of high intensity proportional to the type of procedure. The pain is most intense during the first 24 hours following the surgery and decreases on subsequent days. Its intensity is higher in younger subjects than elderly and obese patients, and preoperative anxiety is also a factor that increases postoperative pain. Ineffective postoperative analgesic therapy may cause several complications that are dangerous to a patient. Inappropriate postoperative pain management may result in chronic pain, immunosuppression, infections, and less effective wound healing. Understanding and better knowledge of physiological disorders and adverse effects resulting from surgical trauma, anesthesia, and extracorporeal circulation, as well as the development of standards for intensive postoperative care units are critical to the improvement of early treatment outcomes and patient comfort.