Key result
Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting showed comparable safety and efficacy to classical sternotomy, with 2 complications per 27-patient group and no angina at 1-year follow-up.
Why the study?
To compare the results and characteristics of minimally invasive versus classical coronary artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary artery disease with critical stenosis.
Does minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting improve outcomes compared to classical median sternotomy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease?
Does minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting improve outcomes compared to classical median sternotomy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease?
Minimally invasive CABG demonstrates comparable safety and 1-year clinical efficacy to classical median sternotomy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.
May support mini-invasive CABG feasibility in small series; leaves open need for RCTs on outcomes versus conventional surgery.
Objective. To analyze the results and comparative characteristics of minimally invasive and classical coronary artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary artery disease and the presence of critical stenosis. Materials and Methods. Over the past two years, the National Scientific Center of Surgery and Transplantation named after O. O. Shalimov performed miniinvasive coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel lesions of the coronary arteries in 27 patients (group 1). The comparative study also included 27 patients operated on using the classical method (group 2). The average age of patients was (53.1 ± 3.9) years. There were 46 men (85.2%) and 8 women (14.8%). According to the main indicators, including the number of affected coronary arteries, age, physiological parameters, etc., the groups did not differ statistically significantly. The main methods of the study were coronary angiography, multislice computed tomography of the coronary arteries with 3D reconstruction of the architecture of the great vessels, chest and heart. Results. During the followup of patients in both groups for up to a year after the operation, no clinical manifestations of angina and heart failure were noted, which gives reason to state the good function of the shunts. Intra and postoperative complications in group 1 occurred in 2 patients: the need for conversion due to cardiac rhythm and hemodynamics (1) and repeated thoracotomy due to bleeding from the arterial shunt (1). In group 2, complications also occurred in 2 patients: sternal diastasis requiring sternoplasty (1) and surgical wound exudation requiring the installation of a vacuum device for 4 days with subsequent secondary suturing (1). Conclusions. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting is a safe method of myocardial revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease and critical stenosis. The technique allows for rapid rehabilitation and shorter hospital stays, which is economically beneficial for the hospital. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting can be considered as an alternative to the classical method of coronary artery bypass grafting with midline sternotomy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beleiovych et al. (2024) studied this question. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting showed comparable safety and efficacy to classical sternotomy, with 2 complications per 27-patient group and no angina at 1-year follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: