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

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.

Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Sixteen Years of Single-Center Experience

Background: Coronary artery disease is a major cause of death globally. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB), using a small left anterior thoracotomy, aims to provide a less invasive alternative to traditional procedures, potentially improving patient outcomes with reduced recovery times. Methods: This retrospective, non-randomized study analyzed 310 patients who underwent MIDCAB between July 1999 and April 2022. Data were collected on demographics, clinical characteristics, operative and postoperative outcomes, and follow-up mortality and morbidity. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS, with survival curves generated via the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: The cohort had a mean age of 63.3 ± 10.9 years, with 30.6% females. The majority of surgeries were elective (76.1%), with an average operating time of 129.7 ± 35.3 min. The median rate of intraoperative blood transfusions was 0.0 (CI 0.0-2.0) Units. The mean in-hospital stay was 8.7 ± 5.5 days, and the median ICU stay was just one day. Early postoperative complications were minimal, with a 0.64% in-hospital mortality rate. The 6-month and 1-year mortalities were 0.97%, with a 10-year survival rate of 94.3%. There were two cases of perioperative myocardial infarction and no instances of stroke or new onset dialysis. Conclusions: The MIDCAB approach demonstrates significant benefits in terms of patient recovery and long-term outcomes, offering a viable and effective alternative for patients suitable for less invasive procedures. Our results suggest that MIDCAB is a safe option with favorable survival rates, justifying its consideration in high-volume centers focused on minimally invasive techniques.

Short-Term Clinical Results of Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass (MIDCAB) Procedure

Objectives: Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) is an alternative for revascularisation of the isolated left anterior descending (LAD) artery or as a multi-vessel (MV) procedure for the diagonal branch (RD) or the left circumflex coronary artery (LCX) region. Methods: From 2021 to 2022, 91 patients underwent MIDCAB or multi-vessel MIDCAB procedures in our heart center. The left internal mammary artery (LIMA) was anastomosed to the left anterior descending artery via the left minithoracotomy approach in all patients. Results: Of the patients, a total of 86.8% were male. Eighty percent of the patients had two- or three-vessel coronary artery disease. The mean age was 65.1 ± 10.1 years. The mean operation time was 2.6 ± 0.8 h. The 30-day mortality was 0. The mean required packed red blood cells (pRBC) was 0.4 ± 1.2 unit. The mean intensive care unit stay (ICU) was 1.5 ± 1.6 days. The mean follow-up time was 1.5 ± 0.5 years. One patient received percutaneous coronary intervention due to de novo stenosis of the RCA. Late mortality was 2.2%. The Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 98.8% at 1 and 2 years. Conclusions: The postoperative complication rate of our MIDCAB cohort is low, and the short-term survival is favorable. Our postoperative and short-term clinical results demonstrate that this procedure is safe and feasible.

Comparison of clinical effects of coronary artery bypass grafting between left anterior small thoracotomy approach and lower-end sternal splitting approach

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effects of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between the left anterior small thoracotomy (LAST) and lower-end sternal splitting (LESS) approaches for coronary artery disease.

METHODS

In total, 110 patients who underwent LAST from October 2015 to December 2020 in Tianjin Chest Hospital were selected as the observation group. Patients who underwent the LESS approach during the same period were analyzed. The propensity score was calculated by a logistic regression model, and nearest-neighbor matching was used for 1:1 matching.

RESULTS

The length of hospital stay and ventilator support time were significantly shorter in the LAST than LESS group. The target vessels in the obtuse marginal branch and posterior left ventricular artery branch grafts were significantly more numerous in the LAST than LESS group, but those in the right coronary artery graft were significantly less numerous in the LAST group.

CONCLUSIONS

CABG using either the LAST or LESS approach is safe and effective, especially in low-risk patients. The LAST approach can achieve complete revascularization for multivessel lesions and has the advantages of less trauma and an aesthetic outcome. However, it requires a certain learning curve to master the surgical techniques and has specific surgical indications.

Early and late outcomes after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass vs. full sternotomy off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

Objectives

Minimally-invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) is a less-invasive alternative to full sternotomy off-pump coronary artery bypass (FS-OPCAB) revascularization of the left anterior descending artery (LAD). Some studies suggested that MIDCAB is associated with a greater risk of graft occlusion and repeat revascularization than FS-OPCAB LIMA-to-LAD grafting. Data comparing MIDCAB to FS-OPCAB with regard to long-term follow-up is scarce. We compared short- and long-term results of MIDCAB vs. FS-OPCAB revascularization over a maximum follow-up period of 10 years.

Patients and methods

From December 2009 to June 2020, 388 elective patients were included in our retrospective study. 229 underwent MIDCAB, and 159 underwent FS-OPCAB LIMA-to-LAD grafting. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for selection bias and to estimate treatment effects on short- and long-term outcomes. IPTW-adjusted Kaplan-Meier estimates by study group were calculated for all-cause mortality, stroke, the risk of repeat revascularization and myocardial infarction up to a maximum follow-up of 10 years.

Results

MIDCAB patients had less rethoracotomies (n = 13/3.6% vs. n = 30/8.0%, p = 0.012), fewer transfusions (0.93 units ± 1.83 vs. 1.61 units ± 2.52, p < 0.001), shorter mechanical ventilation time (7.6 ± 4.7 h vs. 12.1 ± 26.4 h, p = 0.005), and needed less hemofiltration (n = 0/0% vs. n = 8/2.4%, p = 0.004). Thirty-day mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (n = 0/0% vs. n = 3/0.8%, p = 0.25). Long-term outcomes did not differ significantly between study groups. In the FS-OPCAB group, the probability of survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 98.4%, 87.8%, and 71.7%, respectively. In the MIDCAB group, the corresponding values were 98.4%, 87.7%, and 68.7%, respectively (RR1.24, CI0.87-1.86, p = 0.7). In the FS group, the freedom from stroke at 1, 5, and 10 years was 97.0%, 93.0%, and 93.0%, respectively. In the MIDCAB group, the corresponding values were 98.5%, 96.9%, and 94.3%, respectively (RR0.52, CI0.25-1.09, p = 0.06). Freedom from repeat revascularization at 1, 5, and 10 years in the FS-OPCAB group was 92.2%, 84.7%, and 79.5%, respectively. In the MIDCAB group, the corresponding values were 94.8%, 90.2%, and 81.7%, respectively (RR0.73, CI0.47-1.16, p = 0.22).

Conclusion

MIDCAB is a safe and efficacious technique and offers comparable long-term results regarding mortality, stroke, repeat revascularization, and freedom from myocardial infarction when compared to FS-OPCAB.

Thirteen Years of Impactful, Minimally Invasive Coronary Surgery: Short- and Long-Term Results for Single and Multi-Vessel Disease

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive coronary surgery (MICS) via lateral thoracotomy is a less invasive alternative to the traditional median full sternotomy approach for coronary surgery. This study investigates its effectiveness for short- and long-term revascularization in cases of single and multi-vessel diseases.

METHODS

A thorough examination was performed on the databases of two cardiac surgery programs, focusing on patients who underwent minimally invasive coronary bypass grafting procedures between 2010 and 2023. The study involved patients who underwent either minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) for the revascularization of left anterior descending (LAD) artery stenosis or minimally invasive multi-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting (MICSCABG). Our assessment criteria included in-hospital mortality, long-term mortality, and freedom from reoperations due to failed aortocoronary bypass grafts post-surgery. Additionally, we evaluated significant in-hospital complications as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

A total of 315 consecutive patients were identified between 2010 and 2023 (MIDCAB 271 vs. MICSCABG 44). Conversion to median sternotomy (MS) occurred in eight patients (2.5%). The 30-day all-cause mortality was 1.3% (n = 4). Postoperative AF was the most common complication postoperatively (n = 26, 8.5%). Five patients were reoperated for bleeding (1.6%), and myocardial infarction (MI) happened in four patients (1.3%). The mean follow-up time was six years (±4 years). All-cause mortality was 10.3% (n = 30), with only five (1.7%) patients having a confirmed cardiac cause. The reoperation rate due to graft failure or the progression of aortocoronary disease was 1.4% (n = 4).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the complexity of the MICS approach, the results of our study support the safety and effectiveness of this procedure with low rates of mortality, morbidity, and conversion for both single and multi-vessel bypass surgeries. These results underscore further the necessity to implement such programs to benefit patients.

Updates in the Management of Coronary Artery Disease: A Review Article

Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a significant health challenge, imposing substantial burdens on individuals and healthcare systems worldwide. CAD's impact stems from artery narrowing and blockage, leading to severe complications like heart attacks and heart failure. Collaborative efforts by researchers, professionals, and governments have fostered advancements in comprehending and managing this cardiovascular ailment. Evolving CAD management embraces modern diagnostics, cutting-edge pharmaceuticals, invasive procedures, lifestyle modifications, and cardiac rehabilitation. This comprehensive approach aims to amplify outcomes and elevate the quality of life for CAD-affected individuals. This review delves into innovative treatments, pivotal breakthroughs, and recent trends in clinical practices that collectively shape CAD management. The exploration encompasses novel diagnostic technologies enabling early detection and risk assessment. Moreover, it investigates recent breakthroughs in medications that profoundly impact platelet disorders, lipid reduction, and angina. Precision medicine's role in tailoring treatment strategies based on patient characteristics is thoroughly examined. Advances in invasive procedures, like percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), have revolutionised coronary revascularisation, substantially improved long-term outcomes, and reduced restenosis rates. The increasing significance of lifestyle changes and cardiac rehabilitation in CAD management, augmenting treatment options and patient recovery, are meticulously scrutinized. While these strides are pivotal, research continues to chart new paths in CAD management, from innovative drugs to collaborative multidisciplinary care models. Staying attuned to the latest advancements and embracing a patient-centric approach can collectively reduce CAD's impact and facilitate the lives of those grappling with this chronic cardiovascular disorder.

Comparing perioperative outcomes following off-pump multi-vessel minimally invasive via a single left intercostal space incision with median sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting: A single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The perioperative outcomes following off-pump multi-vessel minimally invasive surgery (MICS) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) via a single left intercostal space incision has not been well evaluated.

METHOD

From July 2019 to January 2022, a total of 444 patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) were enrolled and divided into MICS (n = 179) and sternotomy CABG (n = 265). Perioperative outcomes were compared between these two groups, including intraoperative blood loss, postoperative first 24 h drainage, ventilation duration, length of stay (LOS) in ICU and total LOS in hospital. Intraoperative blood flow of graft vessels were measured by transit-time flow measurement after vascular anastomosis and mean flow (MF) and pulsatile index (PI) were compared.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in preoperative profiles between these two groups except younger and lower proportion of female in MICS. No significant difference in the number of graft vessels was observed between MICS (3.18 ± 0.74) and sternotomy CABG (3.28 ± 0.86). Compared to sternotomy CABG, patients with MICS showed longer operation duration [(4.33 ± 0.86) h versus (5.10 ± 1.09) h], fewer intraoperative blood loss [700 (600, 900) mL versus 500 (200, 700) mL], fewer postoperative first 24 h drainage [400 (250, 500) mL versus 300 (200, 400) mL], shorter postoperative ventilation duration [16.5 (12.5, 19.0) h versus 15.0 (12.0, 17.0) h], LOS in ICU [20.0 (16.0, 23.0) h versus 18.0 (15.0, 20.0) h] and total LOS in hospital [(14.5 ± 3.9) d versus (12.6 ± 2.7) d] (all p < .001). MI and PI of graft vessels were similar and no significant differences in major perioperative complications and mortality were observed between MICS and sternotomy CABG (all p > .05).

CONCLUSION

Off-pump multi-vessel MICS may be an alternative treatment for patients with multi-vessel CAD with better perioperative outcomes than sternotomy CABG.

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.

Minimally-invasive approach via percutaneous femoral cannulation for the resection of intra-cardiac masses: a single center experience in the Middle-East

BACKGROUND

Intra-cardiac masses are rare and challenging lesions with an overall incidence ranging of 0.02-0.2%. Minimally invasive approaches have been recently introduced for surgical resection of these lesions. Here, we evaluated our early experience using minimally invasive techniques in addressing intra-cardiac lesions.

METHODOLOGY

This is a retrospective descriptive study conducted between April 2018 to December 2020. All patients were diagnosed with cardiac tumors and treated via a right mini-thoracotomy with cardiopulmonary bypass through femoral cannulation at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Jeddah.

RESULTS

Myxoma was the most common pathology representing 46% of cases followed by thrombus (27%), leiomyoma (9%), lipoma (9%) and angiosarcoma (9%). All tumors were resected with negative margins. One patient was converted to open sternotomy. Tumor locations were in the right atrium, left atrium, and left ventricle in 5, 3, and 3 patients, respectively. The median ICU stay was 1.33 days. The median length of hospitalization was 5.7 days. There was no 30-days hospital mortality recorded in this cohort.

CONCLUSION

Our early experience shows that minimally invasive resection can be performed safely and effectively for intra-cardiac masses. The minimally invasive approach using a mini-thoracotomy with percutaneous femoral cannulation can be an effective alternative in resecting intra-cardiac masses that achieves clear margin resection, quick post-operative recovery, and low rates of recurrence for benign lesions.

Postoperative results of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass procedure in 234 patients

Introduction

Minimally invasive approach in cardiac surgery has gained popularity. In order to reduce surgical trauma in coronary surgery minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) has already been established. This technique has been introduced for revascularisation of isolated left anterior descending (LAD). It can also be performed for hybrid revascularisation procedure in multi-vessel disease.

Methods

From 2017 to 2021, 234 patients received MIDCAB operation in our heartcenter 73% were male. Most of the patients had two or three vessel disease (74%). The average age of the patients was 66 ± 12 years mean. The left internal mammary artery (LIMA) was anastomosed to the LAD through left minithoracotomy approach. Multi-vessel MIDCAB (MV-MIDCAB) including two anastomoses (T-graft to LIMA with additional saphenous vein graft) was done in 15% (n = 35).

Results

The average operation time was 2.3 ± 0.8 h mean. The 30-day mortality was 1.7% (n = 4). The average amount of packed red blood cells (pRBC) that was given intra- and postoperatively was 0.4 ± 0.8 units mean. The mean intensive care unit stay (ICU) was 1 ± 1.2 days. Three patients (1.3%) had wound infection postoperatively. The rate of neurologic complications was 0.4% (n = 1). Two patients (0.9%) had myocardial infarction and received coronary re-angiography perioperatively including stent implantation of the right coronary artery.

Discussion

The MIDCAB procedure is a safe and less traumatic procedure for selected patients with proximal LAD lesions. It is also an option for hybrid procedure in multi-vessel disease. The ICU stay and application of pRBC's are low. Our MIDCAB results show a good postoperative clinical outcome. However, follow-up data are necessary to evaluate long-term outcome.

Ninety-seven cases of experiences with the left thoracotomy approach for off-pump conventional revascularization: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive coronary surgery-coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) is well adopted in clinical practice. However, this procedure did not really achieve conventional complete revascularization. The present study aimed to explore the feasibility and safety of conventional revascularization via the left thoracotomy (8-10 cm) approach.

METHODS

From January 2020 to March 2022, a total of 97 consecutive patients who needed coronary artery revascularization were operated on using this technique. The patients' preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and follow-up data were collected. Perioperative variables were compared between the single graft and non-single graft groups. All patients received dual-source computerized tomographic angiography at 1-week postoperatively to evaluate the graft patency and detect pulmonary embolism and aortic dissection. The patients were followed up for 3-27 months.

RESULTS

The mean age of the entire cohort was 61.5±8.8 years, there were 16 (16.5%) female patients, and 1-4 grafts were performed per patient. There were no conversions to median sternotomy or on-pump CABG. The average number of grafts was 1.9±0.9, and that of the non-single graft group was 2.5±0.6. Among the 97 included patients, one patient in the single graft group suffered from aspiration pneumonia after a stroke and died. The 30-day mortality was 1.0% (one patient), one patient required re-exploration for bleeding (1.1%), and a total of 191 grafts were performed. All grafts were unobstructed except for one graft to the obtuse marginal branch (OM) (0.5%). Follow-up was performed by phone or via outpatient visits and was available for 92 patients (95%). During the follow-up period, 1 (1.1%) patient suffered an acute myocardial infarction and received percutaneous coronary intervention with no redo-surgery. All patients are alive and angina-free.

CONCLUSIONS

Left thoracotomy for conventional revascularization is a safe procedure for appropriately selected patients, with few early complications and good early and mid-term results. More cases are ongoing and long-term results are in observation.

At the Crossroads of Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery—Benching Single Hospital Experience to a National Registry: A Plea for Risk Management Technology

Almost 30 years after the first endoscopic mitral valve repair, Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery (MIMVS) has become the standard at many institutions due to optimal clinical results and fast recovery. The question that arises is can already good results be further improved by an Institutional Risk Management Performance (IRMP) system in decreasing risks in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS)? As of yet, there are no reports on IRMP and learning systems in the literature. (2) Methods: We described and appraised our five-year single institutional experience with MIMVS in isolated valve surgery included in the Netherlands Heart Registry (NHR) and investigated root causes of high-impact complications. (3) Results: The 120-day and 12-month mortality were 1.1% and 1.9%, respectively, compared to the average of 4.3% and 5.3% reported in the NHR. The regurgitation rate was 1.4% compared to 5.2% nationwide. The few high-impact complications appeared not to be preventable. (4) Discussion: In MIMVS, freedom from major and minor complications is a strong indicator of an effective IRMP but remains concealed from physicians and patients, despite its relevance to shared decision making. Innovation adds to the complexity of MIMVS and challenges surgical competence. An IRMP system may detect and control new risks earlier. (5) Conclusion: An IRMP system contributes to an effective reduction of risks, pain and discomfort; provides relevant input for shared decision making; and warrants the safe introduction of new technology. Crossroads conclusions: investment in machine learning and AI for an effective IRMP system is recommended and the roles for commanding and operating surgeons should be considered.

Sutureless versus Hand-Sewn Coronary Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless coronary anastomotic devices are intended to facilitate minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS-CABG) by easing and eventually standardizing the anastomotic technique. Within this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to determine patency and to evaluate safety outcomes for the sutureless anastomoses.

METHODS

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched from database start till August 2021 in a predefined search strategy combining the key concepts: 'coronary artery bypass grafting', 'sutureless coronary anastomoses', and 'hand-sewn coronary anastomoses' by the Boolean operation 'AND'. Study characteristics, patient demographics, interventional details, and all available outcome data were extracted. A meta-analysis was performed on patency at longest follow-up. Safety outcomes were presented.

RESULTS

A total of eleven trials towards six sutureless anastomotic devices were included, comprising 3724 patients (490 sutureless and 3234 hand-sewn). There was no significant difference in patency at a mean follow-up duration of 546.3 (range 1.5-2691) days, with a risk ratio of 0.77 (95% CI 0.55-1.06). MACE was reported in 4.5% sutureless and 3.9% hand-sewn patients, including all-cause mortality (resp. 1.3 vs. 1.9%), myocardial infarction (resp. 1.6 vs. 1.7%), and coronary revascularization (resp. 1.8 vs. 0.5%). Incomplete hemostasis occurred in 24.8% of the sutureless anastomoses. Intra-operative device failure forced conversion to hand-sewn or redo-anastomosis in 5.8% of the sutureless cases.

CONCLUSION

Based on the systematic review and meta-analysis including six devices, we conclude that sutureless coronary anastomotic devices appear safe and effective when used by well-trained and dedicated surgical teams.