Reason and Timing for Conversion to Sternotomy in Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Patient Outcomes

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.

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.

A Single Center Initial Experience with Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (RA-MIDCAB)

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive procedures have demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing the recovery times while ensuring optimal results and minimizing complications. Regarding the coronary artery surgical revascularization field, the evolution of techniques and technology is permitting new surgical strategies that are increasingly precise and suitable for each patient. We present an initial single center experience with a case series of patients successfully treated with combined robotic harvesting of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass graft (MIDCAB) for the anastomosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent minimally invasive coronary artery revascularization with the use of two combined techniques at our Institution between January 2021 and October 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting with the described approach. The median cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamp times were 83 min (76-115) and 38 min (32-58), respectively. The median intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay were 2 days (1-4) and 8 days (6-11), respectively. The procedure's success was achieved in 100% of patients. The 30-day mortality was 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering all the limitations related to the small sample, the presented results of a hybrid approach for minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) appears to be encouraging and acceptable. The main advantage of this approach is related to the reduction of postoperative pain and pulmonary complications.

'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.

Reasons for Conversion and Adverse Intraoperative Events in Robotically Enhanced Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Revascularization

OBJECTIVE

The transition from sternotomy access to minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with steep learning curves. This study reports the reasons for sternotomy conversions from robotically enhanced minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (RE-MIDCAB) and describes potential risk reduction strategies.

METHODS

The perioperative data of 759 RE-MIDCAB patients (mean age 65.9 ± 10 years, 25.5% female, 30.2% multivessel disease) operated between July 1, 2002 and November 30, 2018 were reviewed for the reasons of conversion and adverse intraoperative events. Hybrid revascularization was planned in 204 (26.9%) patients.

RESULTS

Sternotomy conversion occurred in 30 (4.0%) patients. Lung adhesions and unsuccessful single-lung ventilation prohibited safe RE-MIDCAB internal thoracic artery (ITA) harvesting in 11 (36.7%) and 1 (3.3%) patients, respectively. ITA dysfunction (n = 11, 36.7%) and inadequate target vessel visualization (n = 3, 10.0%) were among the anatomical reasons for conversions. Adverse intraoperative events included ventricle perforation (n = 1, 3.3%) and sustained ventricular arrhythmia (n = 1, 3.3%). The in-hospital mortality and mean length of hospitalization for sternotomy conversion were 3.3% (n = 1 of 30) and 13.4 ± 14.5 days, respectively. Perioperative morbidities included pneumonia (n = 4, 13.3%). Premorbid renal dysfunction predicted sternotomy conversion at the 5% level of significance.

CONCLUSIONS

RE-MIDCAB provides an attractive surgical platform for primary- or hybrid coronary artery procedures. The progressive increase in patient risk profiles, strict quality control, and focus on clinical governance require awareness of reasons that potentially contribute RE-MIDCAB to sternotomy conversion to ensure safe and sustainable programs.