Utilizing the ultrasonic shear for internal mammary artery harvesting in minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery is worth considering
Yi Hong,Yunpeng Zhu,Yunpeng Ling
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-24-1226
2024-12-01
Journal of Thoracic Disease
Abstract:Yi Hong 1 , Yunpeng Zhu 2 , Yunpeng Ling 1 1 Department of Cardiac Surgery, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China; 2 Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China Comment on: Jung YC, Chong Y, Kang MW, et al . Clipless internal mammary artery harvesting for minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting using the shear-tip harmonic scalpel. J Thorac Dis 2024;16:3711-21. Keywords: Harmonic scalpel; shear tip; minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (minimally invasive CABG); skeletalization; internal mammary artery (IMA) Submitted Aug 01, 2024. Accepted for publication Oct 16, 2024. Published online Nov 29, 2024. doi: 10.21037/jtd-24-1226 In contemporary coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the left internal mammary artery (IMA) graft to the left anterior descending (LAD) artery has become the gold standard procedure (1,2). Compared to the great saphenous vein grafts (SVGs), IMA grafts demonstrate significantly lower failure (stenosis or occlusion) rates at both 5- and 10-year follow-ups, as well as better clinical outcomes (3,4). However, early failure of IMA grafts can significantly affect clinical outcomes. Harskamp et al. conducted a study involving 1,539 patients and found that those with IMA graft failure faced a significantly higher risk of acute events—such as death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization—within 14 days [14.4% vs. 4.9%; hazard ratio (HR) 3.92; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.30–6.68; P<0.0001]. This trend of increased adverse events associated with IMA graft failure persisted for over four years, although it was not statistically significant (HR 1.45; 95% CI: 0.85–2.48; P=0.17) (5). Among the various factors influencing IMA graft failure, the techniques used for harvesting (pedicle vs. skeletonized) and the quality of anastomosis are of paramount importance. Currently, IMA graft harvesting techniques can be categorized into skeletonized and pedicle techniques. Early on, Boodhwani et al. conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) involving 48 patients, which revealed that skeletonized IMA harvesting, compared to pedicle harvesting, showed a trend towards increased IMA graft length (18.2±0.3 vs. 17.7±0.3 cm, P=0.09), reduced postoperative pain levels at three months, and significantly decreased major sensory deficits at both the four-week and three-month follow-ups (17% vs. 50%, P=0.002) (6). Subsequent studies over the decades have further demonstrated several advantages of IMA skeletonization. A meta-analysis encompassing 31 studies reported that skeletonized harvesting, in comparison to pedicle harvesting, resulted in significantly lower odds of sternal wound infection (SWI) [odds ratio (OR) 0.45; 95% CI: 0.32–0.66; P=0.0001], a longer conduit [weighted mean difference (WMD) −2.48; 95% CI: −3.75 to −1.20; P=0.0001], and a higher postoperative flow rate (WMD −13.11; 95% CI: −22.52 to −3.70; P=0.006) (7). Similar outcomes have also been reported by several other meta-analyses and systematic reviews, although some studies found no significant difference in SWI rates between pedicle and skeletonized harvesting (8,9). However, whether skeletonized IMA harvesting can improve graft patency and provide better safety for patients remains debatable. A meta-analysis involving 5 studies and 1,764 patients showed no significant difference in postoperative graft occlusion rates between pedicle and skeletonized IMA grafts (10). Whereas Lamy et al. analyzed the CABG cohort of the COMPASS trial involving 27,395 patients and found that skeletonized IMA had a higher occlusion rate at 1-year post-CABG compared to pedicle harvesting (9.6% vs. 3.9%; graft-level adjusted OR 2.41; P=0.002). During the 23-month follow-up, patients with skeletonized IMA grafts had significantly higher major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) rates (7.1% vs. 2.1%; adjusted HR 3.19; P=0.002) and repeat revascularization rates (5.0% vs. 1.4%; adjusted HR 2.75; P=0.03) compared to those with pedicle IMA (11). Similarly, Gaudino's 10-year follow-up data of 2,161 patients showed a higher long-term MACE risk with skeletonized IMA grafts (HR 1.25; 95% CI: 1.06–1.47; P=0.01). It is noteworthy that this difference was not significant among surgeons with more than 51 surgeries, suggesting that the prognosis of skeletonized IMA is associated with the surgeon's proficiency (12). In contrast to MACE, several studies have shown no significant difference in all-cause mortality rates between skeletonized and pedicle IMA over a 10-year follow-up (12,13). Therefore, the clinical outcomes of skeletonized IMA harvesting are also dependent on the surgeon's expertise. In current guidelines and pr -Abstract Truncated-
respiratory system