Key result
Minimally invasive CABG linked to ~3 fewer days of antimicrobials and less pneumonia versus conventional surgery.
Why the study?
It was unclear whether the duration of perioperative antibiotic use and infection rate differ significantly between minimally invasive and traditional open-heart coronary artery bypass grafting.
Does minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting reduce the duration of perioperative antibiotic use and infection rates compared to traditional open-heart bypass grafting in patients undergoing CABG?
Cohort (n=471)
Does minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting reduce the duration of perioperative antibiotic use and infection rates compared to traditional open-heart bypass grafting in patients undergoing CABG?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.95% vs 4.67%
p-value: p=<0.001
Minimally invasive CABG is associated with a shorter required duration of perioperative antibiotic treatment and a reduced incidence of postoperative infections compared to traditional open-heart surgery.
MICS CABG was associated with shorter antibiotic duration and lower infection rates than conventional CABG; leaves open optimal perioperative strategies pending prospective trials.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of antimicrobials during the perioperative period of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) and traditional open-heart bypass grafting. We aimed to determine whether the duration of perioperative antibiotic use and infection rate is significantly different between different surgical methods. METHODS: A total of 471 cases of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were collected from January 2019 to December 2022. Patients were divided into minimally invasive group (229 cases) and a conventional group (242 cases) according to the type of surgery. We compared differences in the duration of antimicrobial use and infection rates between the two groups. RESULTS: Compared with the conventional group, the minimally invasive group had a significantly shorter average duration of antimicrobial therapy [(1.95 ± 2.40) d vs. (4.67 ± 5.89) d, P < 0.001], a higher rate of short antibiotic treatment duration (T ≤ 24 h) [51.97% vs. 7.02%, P < 0.001], lower postoperative pneumonia rate [38.86% vs. 56.20%, P < 0.001], lower positive rate of blood and surgical site sample culture (1 case and 0 case) vs. (7 cases and 3 cases), P < 0.001. Subgroup analysis of different durations of antimicrobial treatment (T ≤ 24 h, 24 h < T ≤ 48 h, and 48 h < T ≤ 96 h) in the minimally invasive group showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of infection among the various medication durations (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with traditional surgery, MICS CABG requires a significantly shorter duration of perioperative antibiotic treatment duration and a reduced incidence of infection. Extending the duration of antibiotic treatment did not reduce the incidence of infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: chictr.org.cn ChiCTR2400091571.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease requiring CABG (n=471). Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) vs. Traditional open-heart bypass grafting was evaluated on Average duration of antimicrobial therapy (days) (p=<0.001). Minimally invasive CABG was associated with a shorter average duration of antimicrobial therapy (1.95 vs 4.67 days, P<0.001) and lower postoperative pneumonia rates compared to conventional surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: