Evaluation of anastomosis quality with intraoperative transit time flowmeter in minimally invasive multi-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting via left anterior mini-thoracotomy

Background

In this study, we aimed to describe our intraoperative transit-time flow measurement results as an integral component of the operation and evaluate the graft patency and anastomosis quality in patients who underwent minimally invasive multi-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting via mini-thoracotomy.

Methods

Between May 2020 and September 2021, a total of 45 consecutive patients (32 males, 13 females; mean age: 51.2±8.6 years; range, 41 to 72 years) who underwent minimally invasive multi-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting via left anterior mini-thoracotomy were retrospectively analyzed. We used the technique of intraoperative transit-time flowmetry in all patients. The patients were operated under cardiopulmonary bypass. A saphenous vein graft was used in all anastomoses, except for the left internal thoracic artery.

Results

The mean left internal mammary artery flow rate was 36.2±14.1 mL/min, mean flow rate of the diagonal grafts was 48.2±13.1 mL/min, mean flow rate of the circumflex grafts was 41.2±21.1 mL/min, and mean flow rate of the right coronary artery grafts was 52.2±11.3 mL/min. Wave patterns and flow parameters of all grafts were normal in the intraoperative measurements, since the pulsatility index values in all anastomoses were within normal limits. The operation was completed after anastomotic openings and graft patency were ensured.

Conclusion

The use of an intraoperative flowmeter to show the graft patency and anastomosis quality gives confidence both to the surgeon and the patient. In multi-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting via mini-thoracotomy, anastomosis quality can be evaluated well with this technique.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Coronary Artery Disease - Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Some studies comparing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have reported MIDCAB's superiority, but they did not investigate contemporary PCI with newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES). We compared clinical outcomes after MIDCAB with previously reported outcomes after PCI with second-generation DES.Methods and Results:We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients treated with MIDCAB. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes after MIDCAB were compared with those for left anterior descending artery disease treated via PCI. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and target vessel revascularization (TVR). A propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to adjust for between-group differences in baseline characteristics. We analyzed 77 patients treated with MIDCAB and 2,206 treated with PCI. The MIDCAB group was older and had more severe coronary disease and a higher incidence of left ventricular dysfunction. Over a 3-year follow-up, the PCI group had favorable MACCE outcomes. After PSM, there were no between-group differences in MACCE (MIDCAB, 15.6% vs. PCI, 23.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.38-1.68, P=0.548) or TVR (MIDCAB, 2.6% vs. PCI, 5.2%; HR, 0.51; 95% CI: 0.10-3.09, P=0.509).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes were similar between MIDCAB and PCI using second-generation DES over 3 years of follow-up.

Minimally invasive direct coronary bypass compared with percutaneous coronary intervention for left anterior descending artery disease: a meta-analysis

Background

The clinical outcomes for left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery lesion between minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are still controversial. The objective was to compare safety and efficacy between MIDCAB and PCI for LAD.

Methods

Electronic databases and article references were systematically searched to access relevant studies. End points included mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), major adverse coronary events (MACE), angina recurrence, and stroke.

Results

Fourteen studies with 941 patients were finally involved in the present study. The mortality and incidence of myocardial infarction were similar in MIDCAB and PCI groups at 30 days, 6 months, and at follow-up beyond 1 year. Compared with PCI, MIDCAB decreased incidence of TVR and MACE at 6 months and beyond 1 year follow-up. MIDCAB was associated with a lower incidence of angina recurrence at 6 months compared with PCI. PCI was associated with higher risk of restenosis in target vessel. No significant difference was shown for stroke.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis indicates that there are no significant differences in the safety between MIDCAB and PCI in patients with LAD. However MIDCAB is superior to PCI for TVR and MACE.

Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass in a child with an occlusion of left main coronary artery after arterial switch operation

We present a case of a 13-year old girl experiencing recurring angina pectoris due to an occlusion of the left main coronary artery after arterial switch operation in infancy. To avoid a repeat sternotomy and the use of cardiopulmonary bypass, the patient underwent uncomplicated operative myocardial revascularization in the minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) technique.

Does a minimally invasive approach result in better pulmonary function postoperatively when compared with median sternotomy for coronary artery bypass graft?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'Does a minimally invasive approach result in better pulmonary function postoperatively when compared with median sternotomy for coronary artery bypass graft?'. Procedures such as limited sternotomy and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) though a minithoracotomy were regarded as minimally invasive. Overall, 681 papers were found, of which eight represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, evidence level, relevant outcomes and results of these papers were tabulated. Three randomized, controlled trials (RCT) were included: One study suggested that ministernotomy dividing the corpus sterni (n = 50) offers no advantage over standard sternotomy (n = 50) during the first 10 postoperative days. Two further studies reported on minithoracotomy: one trial presented data suggesting that minithoracotomy (n = 21) is as safe as standard sternotomy with (n = 18) or without (n = 19) cardiopulmonary bypass, but without the benefit ascribed to the minimally invasive incision. A two-centre report investigated pulmonary function as a secondary outcome and claimed that minithoracotomy worsens FEV1 and FVC. The study was not powered to detect these differences as pulmonary function data were available only for one of the centres. Five non-randomized reports were also included in this analysis: These investigated outcomes after minithoracotomy or limited sternotomy compared with standard sternotomy. Patient groups were small, involving <20 subjects per group. Non-randomized studies suggested a benefit to postoperative lung function in using thoracotomy. One of these reports included only patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (FEV1 <70% of predicted) and detected benefits in selected patients undergoing MIDCAB. A further study was in agreement with the above statement in patients without COPD. MIDCAB may be more painful initially, but results in quicker recovery of lung function. Demonstrating the benefits of ministernotomy compared with the standard sternal incision was less clear. One paper demonstrates better outcomes when compared with standard sternotomy, while another reports no difference. We conclude that non-randomized studies support the hypothesis that minimally invasive coronary artery bypass benefits postoperative lung function in patients with known respiratory problems.