Repeat Revascularization Post Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Comparing Minimally Invasive and Traditional Sternotomy Techniques in 1468 Cases
- PMID: 35812562
- PMCID: PMC9259080
- DOI: 10.7759/cureus.25687
Repeat Revascularization Post Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Comparing Minimally Invasive and Traditional Sternotomy Techniques in 1468 Cases
Abstract
Background: Traditional open sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) utilizes highly invasive techniques that lead to several serious complications. In response, minimally invasive cardiac surgery CABG (MICS-CABG) was developed. MICS-CABG is safe, reproducible, and with fewer complications, while allowing for better postoperative recovery periods. There is a paucity of data exploring rates of repeat revascularization in patients post MICS-CABG compared to post traditional sternotomy CABG.
Methods: This was a retrospective billing database review examining 1468 CABG patients at a large university medical center from January 2005 to December 2017. The primary objective was to compare the rate of repeat revascularization events between MICS-CABG and traditional open sternotomy CABG over an eight-year follow-up period.
Results: Our study population consisted of 1468 patients, of whom 513 had MICS-CABG and 955 had traditional CABG. The number of patients undergoing repeat revascularization within the eight-year surveillance was 99 for MICS-CABG and 75 for traditional CABG. The Kaplan-Meier survival probability estimates for eight years were 0.86 for MICS-CABG and 0.91 for traditional CABG. The mean time until a repeat revascularization event was 84.1 months for MICS-CABG and 88.5 months for traditional CABG.
Conclusions: Traditional CABG was found to have a statistically significantly longer time to repeat revascularization than MICS-CABG. Despite the technical challenges associated with MICS-CABG, the time to repeat revascularization was different by only about four months, which may not hold large clinical significance. This suggests that MICS-CABG may have a role to play due to previous findings showing a reduction in complications while allowing for better postoperative recovery periods.
Keywords: angiograpghy; cardiothoracic surgery; coronary artery bypass grafting; coronary revascularization; sternotomy.
Copyright © 2022, Olson et al.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Similar articles
-
The efficacy of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (mics cabg) for patients with coronary artery diseases and diabetes: a single center retrospective study.J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024 Apr 18;19(1):244. doi: 10.1186/s13019-024-02717-8. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024. PMID: 38632609 Free PMC article.
-
Minimally Invasive coronary surgery compared to STernotomy coronary artery bypass grafting: The MIST trial.Contemp Clin Trials. 2019 Mar;78:140-145. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2019.01.006. Epub 2019 Jan 8. Contemp Clin Trials. 2019. PMID: 30634037
-
Mid-Term Follow-up of Minimally Invasive Multivessel Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Is the Early Learning Phase Detrimental?Innovations (Phila). 2017 Mar/Apr;12(2):116-120. doi: 10.1097/IMI.0000000000000353. Innovations (Phila). 2017. PMID: 28328569
-
Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting: is it time for the robot?Curr Opin Cardiol. 2013 Nov;28(6):639-45. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0b013e3283653fd1. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2013. PMID: 24077608 Review.
-
Less invasive multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting: now is the time.Curr Opin Cardiol. 2021 Nov 1;36(6):735-739. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000906. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2021. PMID: 34456253 Review.
Cited by
-
Comparing the Effectiveness of Open and Minimally Invasive Approaches in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review.Clin Pract. 2024 Sep 10;14(5):1842-1868. doi: 10.3390/clinpract14050147. Clin Pract. 2024. PMID: 39311297 Free PMC article. Review.
-
The efficacy of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (mics cabg) for patients with coronary artery diseases and diabetes: a single center retrospective study.J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024 Apr 18;19(1):244. doi: 10.1186/s13019-024-02717-8. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024. PMID: 38632609 Free PMC article.
-
Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. drug-eluting stent implantation: the probabilities of reintervention, transition to severe care-need, nursing home, and death in patients with coronary artery disease within the first three years: evaluations based on health claims data in Germany.J Thorac Dis. 2024 Aug 31;16(8):4863-4874. doi: 10.21037/jtd-24-251. Epub 2024 Aug 16. J Thorac Dis. 2024. Retraction in: J Thorac Dis. 2025 Jan 24;17(1):522-523. doi: 10.21037/jtd-2024-04. PMID: 39268109 Free PMC article. Retracted.
-
Enhanced Recovery and Reduced Complications with Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Compared to Open Sternotomy.Acta Inform Med. 2025;33(2):135-139. doi: 10.5455/aim.2025.33.135-139. Acta Inform Med. 2025. PMID: 40606238 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Ruel M, Chan V, Lapierre H, McGinn JT Jr. Atlas of Cardiac Surgical Techniques. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2009. Multi-vessel small thoracotomy (MVST) coronary artery bypass grafting; pp. 83–94.
-
- Comparison of outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Kang SH, Lee CW, Baek S, et al. Am J Cardiol. 2017;120:69–74. - PubMed
-
- Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2375–2384. - PubMed
-
- Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Lancet. 2013;381:629–638. - PubMed
-
- Surgical revascularization is associated with improved long-term outcomes compared with percutaneous stenting in most subgroups of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: results from the Intermountain Heart Registry. Bair TL, Muhlestein JB, May HT, et al. Circulation. 2007;116:0–31. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources