Review of Contemporary Techniques for Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularization

Is minimally invasive multi-vessel off-pump coronary surgery as safe and effective as MIDCAB?

Introduction

The safety and efficacy of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery has been confirmed in numerous reports. However, minimally invasive multi-vessel off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) has lower uptake and has not yet gained widespread adoption. The study aimed to investigate the non-inferiority of MICS CABG to MIDCAB in long-term follow-up for several clinical outcomes, including angina pectoris, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and overall survival.

Methods

This is an observational, retrospective, single center study of 1,149 patients who underwent either MIDCAB (n = 626) or MICS CABG (n = 523) at our institution between 2007 and 2018. The left internal thoracic artery and portions of the radial artery and saphenous vein were used for the patients' single-, double-, or triple-vessel revascularization procedures. We used gradient boosted propensity-score estimation to account for possible interactions between variables. After propensity-score adjustment, the two groups were similar in terms of preoperative demographics and risk profile. Long-term follow-up (mean 5.87, median 5.6 years) was available for 1,089 patients (94.8%).

Results

A total of 626, 454 and 69 patients underwent single, double and triple coronary revascularization, respectively. The long-term outcomes of freedom from angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, and revascularization rate were similar between the two groups. During follow-up, there were 123 deaths in the MIDCAB group and 96 in the MICS CABG group. The 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 97%, 92%, 85%, and 69% for the MIDCAB group and 97%, 93%, 89%, and 74% for the MICS CABG group, respectively. The hazard ratio of overall survival for patients with two or more bypass grafts compared to those with one bypass graft was 1.190 (p-value = 0.234, 95% CI: 0.893-1.586). This indicates that there was no significant difference in survival between the two groups. Furthermore, if we consider a hazard ratio of 1.2 to be clinically non-relevant, surgery with two or more grafts was significantly non-inferior to surgery with just one graft (p-value = 0.0057).

Conclusion

In experienced hands, MICS CABG is a safe and effective procedure. Survival and durability are comparable with MIDCAB.

Maximizing Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery With Enhanced Recovery (ERAS)

We convened a group of cardiac surgeons, intensivists, and anesthesiologists with extensive experience in minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) and perioperative care to identify the essential elements of a MICS program and the relationship with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS). The MICS incision should minimize tissue invasion without compromising surgical goals. MICS also requires safe management of hemodynamics and preservation of cardiac function, which we have termed myocardial management. Finally, comprehensive perioperative care through an ERAS program should be provided to allow patients to achieve optimal recovery. Therefore, we propose that MICS requires 3 elements: (1) a less invasive surgical incision (non-full sternotomy), (2) optimized myocardial management, and (3) ERAS. We contend that the full benefit of MICS can be achieved only by also utilizing an ERAS platform.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients undergoing robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass: A case series

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been utilized to treat patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). Recent trials suggest comparable efficacy compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Robotic off-pump totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass graft surgery (TECAB) had been shown to be a minimally invasive revascularization strategy with clinical results comparable to traditional coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Traditionally, pre-surgical coronary evaluation is considered necessary to optimize coronary revascularization at the time of AVR. The 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients with Valvular Disease gives a moderate recommendation, based on limited data, for CABG at the time of AVR in patients with significant coronary artery disease (CAD). This paper presents two patients with known significant CAD awaiting robotic TECAB who were treated with TAVR, prior to surgical revascularization. Robotic TECAB is unique in that it offers patients the ability to have complete coronary revascularization without a sternotomy and with early ambulation, discharge, and recovery. The case series demonstrates a hybrid approach that offers complete sternotomy sparing cardiovascular care to treat severe symptomatic AS and CAD. Since patients with severe aortic stenosis are at high risk of developing cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock upon induction of anesthesia, the ability to treat severe symptomatic AS with TAVR under conscious sedation prior to TECAB can be considered as a safe an effective treatment.