Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting
- 76 Downloads
Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS)-CABG is a technique that at its core has patient comfort, early return to routine activities, meeting patient expectations for less invasive options, and maintaining the highest possible standards of care and outcomes. The technique requires not only surgical dexterity but also integration of significant technological advancements in patient care. At a time when percutaneous interventions are often prescribed on the pretext of increased patient comfort and demand, minimally invasive myocardial revascularization becomes even more relevant. Minimally invasive myocardial revascularization is ever evolving and encompasses both small-incision open techniques as well as endoscopic-assisted procedures. The success of the procedure depends not only on the learning curve and familiarity with the technology but also on appropriate patient selection. Mere feasibility of the technique is not sufficient, and the results have to be comparable with the long-established techniques of conventional coronary artery bypass grafting both in terms of early morbidity and mortality as well as long-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss patient selection and technical aspects of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting. We also provide an evidence-based comparison to early and long-term outcomes with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting. Finally, we review the uptake and outcomes of minimally invasive revascularization in the Indian subcontinent.
KeywordsMyocardial revascularization Mini-thoracotomy Coronary artery bypass grafting
We acknowledge the input of the surgeons participating in the questionnaire survey.
Compliance with ethical standards
There was no funding for this manuscript. Dr. Michael Halkos is a consultant for Medtronic but no funds were received by any of the authors for this review and as such, there are no conflicts of interest. The review details a technique, and no patient-specific details are mentioned and as a result, formal ethical approval was not required.
- 1.Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, et al. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143:780-803.Google Scholar
- 14.Magnuson EA, Farkouh ME, Fuster V, et al. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug eluting stents versus bypass surgery for patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease: results from the FREEDOM trial. Circulation. 2013;127:820–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Gold J, et al. Adherence of catheterization laboratory cardiologists to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery: what happens in actual practice? Circulation. 2010;121:267–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Sellke FW, Chu LM, Cohn WE. Current state of surgical myocardial revascularization. Circ J .2010;74:1031-1037.Google Scholar
- 26.Diegeler A, Walther T, Metz S, et al. Comparison of MIDCAP versus conventional CABG surgery regarding pain and quality of life. Heart Surg Forum. 1999;2:290–5.Google Scholar
- 27.Subramanian VA. MIDCAB approach for single vessel coronary artery bypass graft. OperTechCardiac Thorac Surg. 1998;3:2–15.Google Scholar
- 32.Modrau IS, Nielsen PH, Botker HE, et al. Feasibility and early safety of hybrid coronary revascularisation combining off-pump coronary surgery through J-hemisternotomy with percutaneous coronary intervention. Euro Intervention. 2015;10:e1–6.Google Scholar
- 34.Kettering K, Dapunt O, Baer FM. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2004;45:255–64.Google Scholar
- 40.Jaffery Z, Kowalski M, Weaver WD, Khanal S. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials comparing minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention for stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending artery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007;31:691–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Lapierre H, Chan V, Sohmer B, Mesana TG, Ruel M. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting via a small thoracotomy versus off-pump: a case-matched study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40:804–10.Google Scholar
- 44.Rabindranauth P, Burns JG, Vessey TT, Mathiason MA, Kallies KJ, Paramesh V. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with improved clinical outcomes. Innovations. (Phila) 2014;9:421-426.Google Scholar
- 45.Vicol C, Nollert G, Mair H, et al. Midterm results of beating heart surgery in 1-vessel disease: minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass versus off-pump coronary artery bypass with full sternotomy. Heart Surg Forum. 2003;6:341–4.Google Scholar
- 52.Cohn WE. Advances in surgical treatment of acute and chronic coronary artery disease. Tex Heart Inst.J 2010;37:328-330.Google Scholar
- 55.Trehan N, Malhotra R, Mishra Y, Shrivastva S, Kohli V, Mehta Y. Comparison of ministernotomy with minithoracotomy regarding postoperative pain and internal mammary artery characteristics. Heart Surg Forum. 2000;3:300–6.Google Scholar
- 56.Mishra YK, Wasir H, Sharma M, Sharma KK, Mehta Y, Trehan N. Robotically enhanced coronary artery bypass surgery. Indian Heart J. 2004;56:622–7.Google Scholar
- 59.Nambiar P, Mittal C. Minimally invasive coronary bypass using internal thoracic arteries via a left minithoracotomy: "the Nambiar Technique". Innovations (Phila). 2013;8:420–6.Google Scholar
- 60.Hiremath J, Sheth K. Hybrid procedure. J Assoc Physicians India. 2014;62:259–61.Google Scholar