What is 'minimally invasive' coronary bypass surgery? Experience with a variety of surgical revascularization procedures for single-vessel disease
- PMID: 9367483
- DOI: 10.1378/chest.112.5.1409
What is 'minimally invasive' coronary bypass surgery? Experience with a variety of surgical revascularization procedures for single-vessel disease
Abstract
Background: Although the use of small incisions is theoretically appealing, it has been argued that the true advantage of minimally invasive approaches to myocardial revascularization lies in the avoidance of cardiopulmonary bypass.
Methods: Of 25 patients referred for surgical revascularization of single-vessel coronary disease, 20 elected to undergo a minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICABG) procedure, while 5 opted to have conventional surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Patients having MICABG underwent single-vessel revascularization without CPB, via limited anterior thoracotomy, hemisternotomy, or median sternotomy. Intraoperatively, hemodynamics, anastomotic time, and total operative time were recorded. Postoperatively, length of hospital stay, incidence of myocardial infarction, indexes of end-organ function, and morbidity rates were recorded. In addition, patient questionnaires were used to assess subjective end points such as postoperative pain, wound drainage, and quality of life.
Results: Fifteen of 20 patients undergoing MICABG underwent revascularization without CPB, while 4 were converted to standard coronary artery bypass grafting with CPB due to technical reasons and 1 for intraoperative ventricular fibrillation. Patients undergoing MICABG had no perioperative myocardial infarctions, while those having CPB had two infarctions (20%). Furthermore, there were no differences in length of stay or postoperative morbidity among the various approaches, while the MICABG procedures, especially via median sternotomy, were associated with shorter operative times.
Conclusions: The advantage of MICABG lies mainly in the avoidance of CPB. Thus, we advocate that surgeons initially utilize the median sternotomy and limited skin incision for MICABG to assure adequate exposure, technical precision, and patient safety. After a reasonable level of technical proficiency and experience are attained, the limited anterior thoracotomy approach can be used.
Similar articles
-
Minimally invasive single-vessel left internal mammary to left anterior descending artery bypass grafting improves outcomes over conventional sternotomy: A single-institution retrospective cohort study.J Card Surg. 2019 Sep;34(9):788-795. doi: 10.1111/jocs.14144. Epub 2019 Jul 3. J Card Surg. 2019. PMID: 31269282
-
Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting decreases hospital stay and cost.Ann Surg. 1997 Jun;225(6):805-9; discussion 809-11. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199706000-00018. Ann Surg. 1997. PMID: 9230821 Free PMC article.
-
Port-Access coronary artery bypass grafting: technical considerations and results.J Card Surg. 1998 Jul;13(4):281-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8191.1998.tb01069.x. J Card Surg. 1998. PMID: 10225185
-
Perspectives on minimally invasive coronary artery surgery. Current assessment and future directions.Int J Cardiol. 1997 Dec 1;62 Suppl 1:S73-9. doi: 10.1016/s0167-5273(97)00217-9. Int J Cardiol. 1997. PMID: 9464588 Review.
-
Reducing cardiac surgical trauma: the minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass.South Med J. 1997 Oct;90(10):965-71. doi: 10.1097/00007611-199710000-00001. South Med J. 1997. PMID: 9347805 Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical