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

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Minimally Invasive Coronary Bypass for Isolated Left Anterior Descending Artery Disease

The optimal revascularization strategy for isolated left anterior descending (LAD) artery disease, minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), remains a subject of debate. This updated meta-analysis aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of MIDCAB versus PCI for patients with isolated LAD artery disease. Three databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and adjusted studies. Primary outcomes included long-term survival and repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR). The secondary endpoint was long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Hazards ratios (HR) and Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated for long-term outcomes and a random effects model was used. Sensitivity analyses included subgroups analysis of stent-type. Nine articles, comprising 4 RCTs, totaling 2,168 patients (MIDCAB = 1,086 and PCI = 1,080) were included. The weighted mean follow-up was 4.35 ± 4.9 years. Long-term survival was comparable between MIDCAB and PCI (HR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.00; p = 0.05). MIDCAB was associated with a significantly lower rate of repeat TVR (HR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.49; p <0.0001) and a reduced risk of MACEs (HR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.81; p <0.0001), although the difference was not evident in subgroup analysis comparing MIDCAB and PCI with drug-eluting stent (HR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.06; p = 0.09). In conclusion, this meta-analysis of RCTs and adjusted studies shows that in patients with isolated LAD lesion, MIDCAB and PCI exhibit comparable long-term survival. However, MIDCAB is associated with a significantly reduced risk of long-term repeat TVR and MACEs compared to PCI.

Cardiac Surgery 2024 Reviewed

For the 11th consecutive time, we systematically reviewed the cardio-surgical literature for the past year (2024), using the PRISMA approach for a results-oriented summary. In 2024, the discussion on the value of randomized and registry evidence increased, triggered by consistent findings in the field of coronary artery disease (CAD) and discrepant results in structural heart disease. The literature in 2024 again confirmed the excellent long-term outcomes of CABG compared with PCI in different scenarios, generating further validation for the CABG advantage reported in randomized studies. This has been reflected in the new guidelines for chronic CAD in 2024. Two studies indicate novel perspectives for CABG, showing that cardiac shockwave therapy in CABG improves myocardial function in ischemic hearts and that CABG guided by computed tomography is safe and feasible. For aortic stenosis, an early advantage for transcatheter (TAVI) compared with surgical (SAVR) treatment has found more support; however, long-term TAVI results keep being challenged, this year by new FDA and registry data in favor of SAVR. For failed aortic valves, redo-SAVR showed superior results compared with valve-in-valve TAVI. In the mitral field, studies showed short-term noninferiority for transcatheter treatment compared with surgery for secondary mitral regurgitation (MR), and significant long-term survival benefit in registries with surgery for primary MR. Finally, surgery was associated with better survival compared with medical therapy for acute type A aortic intramural hematoma. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It cannot be complete nor free of individual interpretation but provides up-to-date information for patient-specific decision-making.

Medium- and Long-Term Outcomes of 597 Patients Following Minimally Invasive Multi-Vessel Coronary Off-Pump Bypass Surgery

Background: Minimally invasive multi-vessel off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) through left anterior mini-thoracotomy avoids both extracorporeal circulation and sternotomy and is a very elegant, safe, and effective surgical technique, despite its still-limited adoption in the daily toolkit of cardiac surgeons. The goal of this retrospective, single-centre analysis was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of a large patient cohort undergoing MICS CABG. Methods: This study identified 597 consecutive MICS CABG patients from August 2008 to November 2020. We obtained follow-up data by phone or mail. Every patient had a left internal thoracic artery bypass graft. The second and possibly third grafts were radial arteries, great saphenous vein segments, or right internal thoracic arteries. Results: The median age was 69 years, and 92.1% were male. The median EuroSCORE II was 1.5. There were eight conversions to sternotomy and none to cardiopulmonary bypass. The total arterial revascularisation was 92.5%, with 90.3% complete. The 30-day mortality was 0.5%. A total of 575 patients (95.8%) were tracked for 8 years on average. A Cox regression analysis found that a left ventricular ejection fraction < 50%, peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and a history of cerebrovascular accident independently predicted severe adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and late death. The actuarial survival rates for one, three, five, eight, and ten years were 99%, 95%, 91%, 85%, and 80%, respectively. Conclusions: In our study group, the technique of MICS CABG has been proven to be a safe and effective surgical revascularisation method, with a low rate of early complications and favourable long-term outcomes in eligible patients.

Comparison of long-term outcomes of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention for left main disease

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS-CABG) is frequently used for coronary revascularization, but the comparison of long-term clinical results with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in left main disease (LMDs) remains unclear. The present study sought to determine the long-term outcomes of MICS-CABG and PCI in patients with LMDs.

METHODS

A total of 551 consecutive patients [man: 457 (82.9%), mean age: 60.70 ± 9.54 years] who underwent PCI or MICS-CABG for LMDs were included. The primary endpoint was defined as the all-cause death during follow-up. The secondary endpoint defined as the major cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE) included cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, stroke, and stent thrombosis or graft occlusion. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed to reduce treatment selection bias. This is the first report comparing the long-term outcomes of MICS-CABG and PCI in patients with LMDs.

RESULTS

The initial revascularization strategy was MICS-CABG in 269 (48.8%) cases and PCI in 282 (51.2%) patients. The SYNTAX scores (31.25 ± 4.63 vs. 26.05 ± 5.9, P < 0.001) were notably higher in the MICS-CABG group than in the PCI group. The incidence of long-term mortality (11 vs. 5.6%, P = 0.022) and MACCE (22 vs. 15.2%, P = 0.042) were notably higher in the PCI group than in the MICS-CABG group. The long-term mortality [adjusted HR (IPW) = 6.38 (95% CI, 3.00-13.57), P < 0.001] and MACCE [adjusted HR (IPW) = 4.51 (95% CI, 2.90-7.03), P < 0.001] in the overall population significantly differed between the PCI group and the MICS-CABG group.

CONCLUSION

The present study suggests that MICS-CABG for LMDs was associated with lower long-term mortality and MACCE rates than PCI.

Revascularization after minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting in 566 patients: Is it a problem?

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) allows visualization and revascularization of all myocardial territories through a small anterolateral thoracotomy, with or without cardiopulmonary bypass. It is increasing in popularity as a safe and effective alternative to sternotomy CABG. In this study, we examined the correlates and long-term outcomes of repeat revascularization (RR) in patients who undergo MICS CABG.

METHODS

We prospectively followed all patients on an annual or semiannual basis who had undergone MICS CABG surgery over a 17-year period at a single institution. Cumulative incidence of RR was calculated accounting for competing risk of mortality. Kaplan-Meier curves were compared with log-rank test for survival and freedom from cardiac death at 12-years for both groups. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were performed to identify variables associated with RR and its impact on long-term survival.

RESULTS

Clinical follow-up was complete for 100% of patients (N = 566) at a mean of 7.0 ± 4.4 years. Forty-nine (8.7%) patients required RR after their MICS CABG, for a cumulative incidence at 12 years of 14.8 ± 2.5%. The most common indication was progression of native coronary disease in 23 (46.9% of RR) patients. Perioperative transfusion was the only variable associated with RR (hazard ratio, 5.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-10.3). When we compared patients who had RR with those who did not, there was no significant difference in late survival (92.1 ± 4.5% vs 80.3 ± 3.0%; P = .18).

CONCLUSIONS

Among 566 patients who underwent MICS CABG over a 17-year period, RR was an infrequent event affecting 8.7% of patients, with no negative impact on long-term survival.

Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review of all available evidence on the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

A systematic literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed to identify all relevant studies evaluating outcomes of MICS CABG among patients with multivessel CAD and including at least 15 patients with no restriction on the publication date.

RESULTS

A total of 881 studies were identified, of which 26 studies met the eligibility criteria. The studies included a total of 7,556 patients. The average patient age was 63.3 years (range 49.5 to 69.0 years), male patients were an average of 77.8% (54.0% to 89.8%), and body mass index was 29.8 kg/m2 (24.5 to 30.1 kg/m2). Early mortality and stroke were on average 0.6% (range 0% to 2.0%) and 0.4% (range 0% to 1.3%), respectively. The average number of grafts was 2.8 (range 2.1 to 3.7). The average length of hospital stay was 5.6 days (range 3.1 to 9.3 days).

CONCLUSIONS

MICS CABG appears to be a safe method in well-selected patients with multivessel CAD. This approach is concentrated at dedicated centers, and there is no widespread application, although it has potential to be widely applicable as an alternative for surgical revascularization. However, large randomized controlled studies with longer follow-up are still required to compare the outcomes with conventional CABG and other revascularization strategies.

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.

Update on minimally invasive cardiac surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Numerous recent trials have examined the potential benefits of treating cardiac surgery patients with a minimally invasive approach. Recently, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has also been applied to cardiac surgery, and specifically to minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) patients. This review will explore current evidence regarding MICS, as well as the combination of MICS plus ERAS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple contemporary prospective and retrospective trials have published data demonstrating equivalent or better outcomes with reduced length of stay (LOS) for MICS patients compared to patients undergoing full sternotomy. In fact, recent reviews and met-analyses suggest that MICS is associated with reduced atrial fibrillation, wound complications, blood transfusion, LOS, and potentially cost. Additionally, several new trials reporting longer term follow-up on MICS coronary and valve surgery have demonstrated durable results. Emerging literature on the benefits of combining MICS and ERAS perioperative protocols have also reported promising results regarding reduced LOS and faster recovery.

SUMMARY

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery appears to provide patients with equivalent or better outcomes, faster recovery, and less surgical trauma compared to full sternotomy. The addition of ERAS phase specific perioperative protocols can help maximize the benefits of MICS.

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.

Designing the coronary artery bypass surgery operation of the future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article discusses current shortcomings in coronary artery bypass surgery and ways to overcome them.

RECENT FINDINGS

Minimally invasive coronary bypass surgery, robotic coronary bypass, and hybrid approaches aim to avoid sternotomy, employ arterial grafts, and minimize the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. Other considerations such as bypass graft validation, the optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy, and the development of coronary surgery specialists are also crucial to further the benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting on future patients.

SUMMARY

Coronary artery bypass grafting must become less invasive, be better validated, and be carried out with an even higher emphasis on quality, including graft validation and preoperative/postoperative optimization, if it is to remain the best treatment for advanced, severe coronary artery disease.

The Feasibility and Early Results of Multivessel Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for All Comers

OBJECTIVES

Cardiovascular surgery advancements have emerged with various minimally invasive approaches for treating multivessel coronary disease to improve outcomes and minimize the burden associated with conventional cardiac surgery. We present our clinical experience and minimally invasive coronary bypass techniques through minithoracotomy, which we apply without selection to patients who have decided to have elective surgery for multivessel isolated coronary artery disease.

METHODS

It consists of 230 consecutive patients operated by the same team with this method between July 2020 and September 2022. The patients were assigned to one of the two methods preoperatively to their accompanying comorbidities and operated on either with blood cardioplegia via 5 to 7 cm left anterior minithoracotomy, with on-pump clamped technique or without pump via left anterolateral minithoracotomy.

RESULTS

Mortality was observed in two of our patients (0.9%), but myocardial infarction was not observed in our patients in the early postoperative period. None of our patients required conversion to sternotomy (0%). Five patients' needed reoperation from the same incision due to postoperative bleeding (2.2%), and atrial fibrillation developed in 17 patients in the postoperative period (7.4%). The mean number of bypasses was found to be 3.0 ± 0.9.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery via minithoracotomy can be routinely reproduced safely. More long-term results and more multicenter studies are needed for more widespread acceptance of the technique.