Comparison of Clinical Effects Between Left Chest Small Incision and Median Incision Multi-arterial Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

傅元豪,宫一宸,张鲁锋,吴松,凌云鹏

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-6604.2023.03.009

2023-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate early clinical outcomes of minimally invasive cardiac surgery-coronary artery bypass grafting（MICS CABG） using multi-arteries via left chest small incision. Methods Clinical data of 123 cases of off-pump multi-arterial CABG from January 2018 to December 2020 in our department were retrospectively analyzed. According to the needs of the patient and the tendency of the surgeon, the median incision（median incision group, n=51） or left chest small incision（left chest small incision group, n=72） was applied. Coronary CT or coronary angiography were used to evaluate the bypassing vessels before discharge, and early follow-up was performed after operation. The end point of follow-up was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event（MACCE） and repeated revascularization. Results There were（2.7±0.7） distal anastomoses in the left chest small incision group and（3.0±0.8） in the median incision group, without significant difference（t=-1.885, P=0.062）. The left chest small incision group had a higher ratio of total arterial revascularization [91.7%（66/72） vs. 41.2%（21/51）, χ~2=36.762, P=0.000] and less perioperative transfusion [31.9%（23/72） vs. 64.7%（33/51）, χ~2=12.920, P=0.000] than the median incision group. One patient dead in the median incision group due to myocardial infarction. A total of 100 patients underwent coronary CT anteriography before discharge, including 30 in the median incision group and 70 in the left chest small incision group. A total of 280 grafts were reviewed, and there were no significant differences in overall graft patency rate（FitzGibbon grade A） between the two groups [94.2%（179/190） vs. 94.4%（85/90）, χ~2=0.006, P=0.937]. A total of 118 patients received follow-ups with a median of 24 months（range, 6-36 months）, and the incidences of MACCE [2.9%（2/70） vs. 6.3%（3/48）, χ~2=0.808, P=0.369] and repeated revascularization [2.9%（2/70） vs. 2.1%（1/48）, χ~2=0.000, P=1.000] were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions MICS CABG using multi-arteries is a feasible alternative. The surgical strategy is more inclined to perform total arterial bypass grafting. The graft patency rate and early follow-up results are all not inferior to median incision surgery, with MICS CABG being associated with less transfusion.