Early and late outcomes after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass vs. full sternotomy off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting
Mohammad Sharaf,Armin Zittermann,Jakub Sunavsky,Tomasz Gilis-Januszewski,Sebastian V. Rojas,Julia Götte,Dragan Opacic,Darko Radakovic,Georges El-Hachem,Artyom Razumov,Andre Renner,Jan F. Gummert,Marcus-André Deutsch
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1298466
IF: 3.6
2024-02-21
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Abstract: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.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems