Conventional Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Research Articles

Multi-vessel coronary artery grafting: analyzing the minimally invasive approach and its safety.

At our institution, we perform off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) as a standard procedure. Moreover, patients with favorable coronary anatomy and condition are selected for minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS)-OPCAB. We retrospectively compared early outcomes, focusing on safety, between MICS-OPCAB and conventional off-pump techniques for multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). From August 2017 to September 2022, 1,220 patients underwent multivessel coronary artery grafting at our institution. They were divided into the MICS-OPCAB group (MICS group = 163 patients) and the conventional OPCAB group (MS group = 1057 patients). Propensity score matching (1 : 1 ratio) was applied to the MICS-OPCAB and MS groups (149 patients per group) based on 23 preoperative clinical characteristics. After matching, there were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics between the groups. The MICS group had a lower total graft number (2.3 ± 0.6 vs. 2.9 ± 0.8, p < 0.001) and fewer distal anastomoses (2.7 ± 0.8 vs. 3.2 ± 0.9, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, postoperative complications, and 30-day mortality. The MICS group had less drain output (MICS 350 ml [250-500], MS 450 ml [300-550]; p = 0.013). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant differences in postoperative MACCE (major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events)-free and survival rates between the groups (MACCE-free rate p = 0.945, survival rate p = 0.374). With proper patient selection, MICS-OPCAB can provide good short to mid-term results, similar to those of conventional OPCAB.

Robotic‐assisted versus conventional off‐pump coronary surgery in women: A propensity‐matched study

Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) previously demonstrated its potential benefits in women; however, robotic-assisted OPCAB was scarcely studied. To investigate whether robotic-assisted OPCAB could further improve the outcomes in women and the potential impact of hybrid approaches with stents and completeness of revascularization on the late outcomes. Women who underwent robotic-assisted or conventional OPCAB (with sternotomy) between May 2005 and January 2021 at Lankenau Heart Institute were included. Propensity score matching was used to match 273 pairs on 27 characteristics. In the intraoperative period, women who underwent robotic-assisted OPCAB presented longer operative times (6.00 vs. 5.38 h; p < 0.001), higher rates of extubation in the operating room (83.9% vs. 75.5%; p = 0.019) and lower rates of blood transfusion (13.2% vs. 32.2%; p < 0.001). In the postoperative period, women who underwent robotic-assisted OPCAB presented lower rates of new onset atrial fibrillation (16.8% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.016), need of blood transfusion (33.0% vs. 54.9%; p < 0.001), shorter intensive care unit (ICU) (46.1 vs. 49.8 h; p = 0.006) and hospital length of stay (5.0 vs. 6.0 days; p < 0.001). We observed no statistically significant differences in the rates of operative death between the groups (1.47% vs. 1.47%; p = 0.771). In the follow-up, we observed no differences in terms of overall survival regardless of hybrid procedures with stents and completeness of revascularization. Robotic-assisted OPCAB in women is as safe as conventional OPCAB and may further improve outcomes. Hybrid coronary revascularization was a valuable adjunct in the robotic scenario and completeness of revascularization did not play a role in this setting.

Comparison of early outcomes associated with coronary artery bypass grafting for multi-vessel disease conducted using minimally invasive or conventional off-pump techniques: a propensity-matched study based on SYNTAX score

BackgroundThis study was designed to compare early outcomes associated with coronary artery bypass grafting for multi-vessel disease conducted using either minimally invasive or conventional off-pump techniques.MethodsFrom January 2017 through January 2021, 582 patients with multi-vessel lesion coronary artery disease underwent either minimally invasive cardiac surgery coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) or conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) treatment by our team at Anzhen Hospital. Patients in the MICS CABG group were propensity score-matched with those in the OPCABG at a 1:1 ratio (MICS CABG = 172; OPCABG = 172), using epidemiological data, preoperative clinical characteristics, and SYNTAX score as covariates. Perioperative outcomes and 6-month computed tomography angiography findings were compared between these groups.ResultsNo significant differences between groups were observed with respect to 30-day postoperative mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke incidence. Surgical data indicated that the MICS CABG procedure was able to cover all three main arterial territories with a relatively low need for circulatory assistance. The MICS CABG procedure was associated with a longer operative duration, but was also associated with higher postoperative hemoglobin and activities of daily living index values as well as a shorter duration of postoperative hospitalization (P < 0.05). No differences in 6-month graft patency were observed between groups.ConclusionsMICS CABG is a safe, less invasive alternative to OPCABG when performing complete revascularization provided patients are properly selected, yielding similar in-hospital outcomes and 6-month graft patency rates together with an earlier return of physical function.

One-Stop Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

One-stop hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a promising revascularization strategy for treating multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). However, its safety and feasibility remain controversial. Therefore, we introduced our experience with midterm follow-up of HCR in patients with MVCAD and compared it with conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).Patients with MVCAD undergoing one-stop HCR at Beijing Chaoyang Hospital between March 2018 and December 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. These patients were matched in a 1:2 ratio to patients treated with off-pump CABG at the same period via a propensity score analysis with the nearest neighbor matching algorithm.In the adjusted analysis, no significant difference was found in the rate of perioperative myocardial infarction, stroke, death, prolonged ventilation, reoperation for bleeding, and renal failure between the HCR group and the CABG group. No in-hospital repeated revascularization occurred in either group. HCR was associated with lower blood transfusion rate (HCR 11.0% versus CABG 22.8%; P = 0.006) and shorter postoperative length of stay (> 10 days: 31.5% versus 81.0%; P < 0.001) compared with CABG. After the median 21-month follow-up, no significant difference was found in the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), death, myocardial infarction, repeated revascularization, and stroke rate. Besides, the freedom-from MACCE survival rate was similar between the two groups.One-stop HCR seemed to be a safe and feasible revascularization strategy in patients with MVCAD, with faster recovery and similar outcomes when compared with off-pump CABG.

Robotic hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional off-pump coronary bypass surgery in women with two-vessel disease.

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) treats coronary artery disease (CAD) by combining a minimally invasive surgical approach with the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to the left anterior descending (LAD) artery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD vessels. This study aimed to compare immediate and long-term outcomes between robotic HCRand off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) via sternotomy in women with two-vessel CAD. We compared all robotic HCR (LIMA-to-LAD plus stent; n = 55) and OPCAB (LIMA-to-LAD plus saphenous vein graft; n = 54) performed at a single institution between May 2005 and January 2021. To adjust for the selection bias of receiving either HCR or OPCAB, we performed a propensity score analysis of 31 matched pairs. In the immediate postoperative period, no statistically significant difference was observed for operative mortality and HCR was associated with lower rates of blood transfusion (25.8% vs. 54.8%; p = .038), and shorter hospital length of stay (4.0 vs. 6.0 days; p = .009). After a mean follow-up of 7.0 ± 4.9 years, we observed no statistically significant differences between the groups for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09-2.64, p = .401), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.60, 95% CI: 0.14-17.64, p = .703), stroke (HR not assessable; almost zero events), target vessel revascularization (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.08-2.47, p = .359), angina (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.20-2.01, p = .444) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.14-1.52, p = .202). Robotic HCR provides for women with two-vessel CAD a shorter postoperative recovery with fewer blood transfusions, with similar long-term outcomes when compared with conventional OPCAB via sternotomy.

Clinical outcomes of total arterial off-pump coronary revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction

Objective: To compare the advantages and disadvantages of total arterial revascularization (TAR) and conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) grafting in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD). Methods: Between January 2008 and March 2015, 76 patients who were scheduled to undergo selective OPCAB were selected for cardiac surgery in Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University. The left ventricular ejection fraction of enrolled patients was less than 35%. Among those patients, 38 patients in TAR group underwent total arterial OPCAB with bilateral internal mammary artery, left and/or right radial artery, and another 38 patients in control group underwent conventional OPCAB with left internal mammary artery and great saphenous vein. The clinical data of all patients were collected. The follow-up was performed within 36 months. Results: There was no significant difference in preoperative clinical data between the two groups (all P>0.05). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the application rate of internal mammary artery, positive inotropic drugs and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use between the two groups (all P>0.05). The operation time of TAR group was longer than that of control group [(278.3±31.2) min vs (196.7±19.1) min, P<0.01]. There was no significant difference in perioperative mortality between the two groups (5.3% vs 7.9%, P=0.64). The volume of operative drainage and blood transfusion in TAR group increased significantly at 24 hours after operation [(895.0±236.2) ml vs (585.4±172.5) ml, (656.3±84.4) ml vs (433.3±62.9) ml, both P<0.01]. There was no significant difference in perioperative complications such as heart, kidney and lung failure between the two groups (all P>0.05). At 12 months after operation, there were no significant differences in survival rate, cardiac death rate, angina recurrence, myocardial infarction, re-treatment rate of revascularization, re-hospitalization rate from cardiac insufficiency, graft patency rate, cardiac function and echocardiographic data between the two groups (all P>0.05). From 24 to 36 months after operation, all the above indexes in TAR group were better than those in control group except for echocardiographic data (all P<0.05). Conclusions: For LVD patients, the early clinical efficacy of the two surgical methods is similar, but for the long-term outcomes, the whole arterial OPCAB operation is obviously superior. However, the shortcomings of total arterial OPCAB are that operative drainage and the use of blood products increased significantly after operation.

100.59 Comparative Long-Term Outcomes in Same Sitting, Robotic Assisted Hybrid Coronary Artery Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Multi-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease

There are limited short- and long-term data in hybrid coronary artery revascularization (HCR), especially when performed in the same sitting, compared to conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG). We compared the long-term outcomes of same-sitting HCR with OPCABG in similar

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review.

To minimize surgical morbidity in coronary artery bypass grafting, minimally invasive cardiac surgery has gained popularity. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting offers unique advantages compared to conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass or minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass in that it enables the surgeon to harvest and graft bilateral internal thoracic arteries via a small thoracotomy while being conducted completely off-pump. This review focuses on current evidence behind off-pump coronary artery bypass, multi-arterial revascularization, patient populations that would most benefit from bilateral internal thoracic artery minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting, the surgical technique, and early outcomes. By overcoming the perceived inability to utilize bilateral internal thoracic arteries in minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting, the new technique further expands the armamentarium of surgeons and cardiologists. Hybrid coronary revascularization with bilateral internal thoracic artery minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting further augments the appeal of the next generation of minimally invasive cardiac surgery.

Mid-term follow-up outcomes of 2-staged hybrid coronary revascularization compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

IntroductionTwo-staged hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a novel procedure in selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, few studies are available on the mid-term or long-term outcomes of this 2-staged procedure as compared to off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB).AimTo compare in-hospital and mid-term follow-up outcomes of 2-staged HCR with OPCAB in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.Material and methodsThe present retrospective study analyzed the data from 73 patients who underwent the 2-staged HCR (HCR group) during 2012–2014 at the heart center. Three hundred and eighty-three patients who underwent conventional OPCAB by the same surgeon were selected for the comparative analysis performed on in-hospital and mid-term follow-up outcomes between the two groups.ResultsNo significant difference was observed in the preoperative outcome between the two groups. The HCR group had a shorter operation duration (152.9 ±43.8 vs. 262.6 ±51.8 min, p < 0.05), less bleeding (558.6 ±441.3 vs. 1035.5 ±613.3 ml, p < 0.05), shorter mechanical ventilation (9.4 ±7.4 vs. 19.0 ±18.3 h, p < 0.05), and less blood transfusion (12 (16.4%) vs. 200 (52.2%), p < 0.05). The mean follow-up duration was 25.0 ±9.6 months in the HCR group and 22.8 ±10.6 months in the OPCAB group. The incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was similar in both groups (4 (5.5%) vs. 10 (2.8%), p = 0.408). The estimated 3-year survival was similar in both groups (log-rank χ2 = 1.041, p = 0.308).ConclusionsThe 2-staged HCR is a safe and effective surgical procedure and may offer similar mid-term follow-up outcomes to OPCAB.

Risk of stroke with “no-touch” — As compared to conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. An updated meta-analysis of observational studies

Risk of stroke with “no-touch” — As compared to conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. An updated meta-analysis of observational studies

Midterm Outcomes of Simultaneous Hybrid Coronary Artery Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and midterm outcomes of a simultaneous hybrid revascularization strategy for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD), compared with conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB). We compared the in-hospital and midterm outcomes of a simultaneous hybrid revascularization strategy (minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting of the left anterior descending coronary artery [LAD] and percutaneous intervention to non-LAD lesions) in 20 patients with LMCAD in an enhanced operating room. These patients were matched by propensity score to a group of 20 control patients who underwent standard OPCAB between September 2007 and December 2009. All baseline clinical characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. All of the patients in the 2 groups underwent surgery uneventfully without conversion to on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Compared with OPCAB, the patients in the hybrid group had shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit (34.8 ± 37.6 hours versus 50.7 ± 34.5 hours, P = .01). Transfusion requirements were reduced in the hybrid patients compared with the OPCAB patients (5% versus 40%, P = .01). The 2 groups did not differ with respect to the occurrence of other important morbidities. During the mean (±SD) follow-up of 18.5 ± 9.8 months, the group of patients who underwent the simultaneous hybrid procedure experienced an incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events that was similar to that of the OPCAB control group (100% versus 90%, respectively; P = .31). The midterm follow-up indicated that the simultaneous hybrid revascularization procedure for LMCAD is feasible, safe, and effective. These promising early findings warrant further prospective investigations.

Simultaneous Hybrid Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

This study sought to compare early and midterm clinical outcomes of a simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization procedure with those in a propensity-matched subset of patients undergoing conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. From June 2007 through December 2009, 104 consecutive patients (mean age 61.8 ± 10.2 years) with multivessel coronary artery disease underwent elective simultaneous coronary revascularization at Fuwai Hospital. Using propensity score methodology, these patients were matched with 104 patients who had undergone off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting through median sternotomy during the same period. We compared these groups' in-hospital clinical outcomes and freedom from major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at a mean follow-up of 18 ± 7.9 months. The hybrid procedure required longer operative time and incurred higher in-hospital costs, but had shorter median intubation time (11.6 ± 6.3 vs 13.8 ± 6.8 hours, p = 0.02), intensive care unit length of stay (34.5 ± 35.6 vs 55.3 ± 46.4 hours, p < 0.001), and postoperative in-hospital length of stay (8.2 ± 2.6 vs 9.5 ± 4.5 days, p = 0.01). The hybrid group had significantly less chest tube drainage (789 ± 389 vs 834 ± 285 mL, p = 0.005) and need for blood transfusion (28.8% vs 51.9%, p > 0.001). At a mean follow-up of 18 months, the freedom from major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events is in favor of the hybrid group (99.0% vs 90.4%; p = 0.03). Compared with conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization shortens recovery time and has superior outcomes at a mean follow-up of 18 months. Simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization provides a safe and reproducible alternative for selected patients with multivessel coronary artery diseases.

Simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization reduces postoperative morbidity compared with results from conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass

Less-invasive options are available for surgical treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. We hypothesized that stenting combined with grafting of the left anterior descending artery with the left internal thoracic artery through a minithoracotomy (hybrid procedure) would provide the best outcome. Patients with equivalent numbers of coronary lesions (2.8 +/- 0.4) underwent either hybrid (n = 15) or off-pump coronary artery bypass through a sternotomy (n = 30). Early and 1-year outcomes were compared. Blood drawn from the aorta and coronary sinus immediately postoperatively was analyzed for activation of coagulation (prothrombin fragment 1.2 and activated Factor XII), myocardial injury (myoglobin), and inflammation (interleukin 8) by using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Target-vessel patency was determined by means of computed tomographic angiographic analysis. The hybrid procedure was associated with significantly shorter lengths of intubation and stays in the intensive care unit and hospital and perioperative morbidity (P < .05). Intraoperative costs were increased but postoperative costs were reduced for the hybrid procedure compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass through a sternotomy. As a result, overall total costs were not significantly different between the groups. After adjusting for potential confounders, assignment to the hybrid group was an independent predictor of shortened time to return to work (t = -2.12, P = .04). Patient satisfaction after the hybrid procedure, as judged on a 6-point scale, was greater versus that after off-pump coronary artery bypass through a sternotomy. Finally, the hybrid procedure showed significantly reduced transcardiac gradients of markers of coagulation, myocardial injury, and inflammation and a trend toward significant improvement in target-vessel patency. Perhaps because of reduced myocardial injury, inflammation, and activation of coagulation, patients undergoing the hybrid procedure had better perioperative outcomes and satisfaction, with excellent patency at 1 year's follow-up. These promising preliminary findings warrant further investigation of this procedure.

Symmetry™ Aortic Connector Devices and Acute Renal Injury: A Comparison of Renal Dysfunction After Three Different Aortocoronary Bypass Surgery Techniques

Although the pathogenesis of acute renal injury after cardiac surgery is multifactorial, atherosclerosis of the ascending aorta and embolic burden are strong independent predictors. Use of the Symmetry aortic connector device (ACD) for proximal anastomosis of coronary grafts may reduce ascending aortic atheroembolism. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery performed using an ACD is associated with less postoperative renal dysfunction compared with conventional OPCAB or on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Three-thousand-three-hundred consecutive patients undergoing non-emergent aortocoronary bypass surgery were retrospectively divided into three groups by surgical procedure; Group A: OPCAB with ACD (n = 124), Group B: standard OPCAB (n = 313), Group C: on-pump CABG (n = 2863). Postoperative peak fractional change in creatinine compared with baseline was used as a measure of renal outcome. Multivariable analysis did not identify ACD use as an independent predictor of postoperative peak fractional change in creatinine (P = 0.71), although the relationships of several known renal risk factors with postoperative peak fractional change in creatinine were confirmed. We could not find evidence that OPCAB surgery using ACDs reduces acute renal injury compared with standard OPCAB or CABG surgery.