Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768035
Original Cardiovascular

Five-Year Survival of Patients Treated with Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass (MIDCAB) Compared with the General Swiss Population

Oliver Reuthebuch 
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
,
Alina Stein
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
,
Luca Koechlin
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
,
Brigitta Gahl
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
,
Denis Berdajs
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
,
David Santer
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
,
Friedrich Eckstein
1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background To evaluate the midterm follow-up and 5-year survival outcome of the minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) procedure compared with the survival of the general Swiss population.

Methods Retrospective study on preoperative data, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcome of patients who underwent MIDCAB surgery between June 2010 and February 2019. To assess validity of this surgical therapy, outcomes were compared with survival data of a gender- and age-matched cohort of the general Swiss population taken from the database of the Swiss Federal Statistical Office.

Results A total of 88 patients were included. Median (interquartile range [IQR[) age was 66 (56–75) years, and 27% (n = 24) were female. The median (IQR) length of the in-hospital stay was 7 (6–8) days. No postoperative stroke occurred. The 30-day mortality was 1.1% (n = 1). Reintervention for failed left internal mammary artery was needed in 1.1% (n = 1). The median (IQR) ejection fraction was 58% (47–60) preoperatively and remained stable during follow-up. The median (IQR) follow-up period was 3 (1.1–5.2) years. Five years postoperatively, 83% (confidence interval, 69–91) of the patients were alive, showing an overlap with the range of survival of the matched subcohort of the general Swiss population (range, 84–100%).

Conclusion Though suffering from coronary heart disease, patients after MIDCAB show almost equal survival rates as an equivalent subcohort corresponding to the general Swiss population matched on age and gender. Thus, our data show this treatment to be safe and beneficial.

Keywords

minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass - left internal mammary artery - left anterior descending artery - cardiac surgery - off-pump - coronary heart disease


Publication History

Received: 16 October 2022

Accepted: 17 January 2023

Article published online:
12 April 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Bravata DM, Gienger AL, McDonald KM. et al. Systematic review: the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147 (10) 703-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Takagi H, Kawai N, Umemoto T. Stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137 (01) e54-e57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Benetti FJ, Ballester C, Sani G, Doonstra P, Grandjean J. Video assisted coronary bypass surgery. J Card Surg 1995; 10 (06) 620-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Holzhey DM, Jacobs S, Mochalski M. et al. Seven-year follow-up after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass: experience with more than 1300 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 83 (01) 108-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Georgi B. Lebensqualität von Patienten nach MIDCAB- Operation versus isoliertem RIVA- Stenting im Langzeitverlauf. Rat der Medizinischen Fakultät der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Deutschland; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Dieberg G, Smart NA, King N. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 2016; 223: 554-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Xu Y, Li Y, Bao W, Qiu S. MIDCAB versus off-pump CABG: comparative study. Hellenic J Cardiol 2020; 61 (02) 120-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bundesamt für Statistik. Accessed September 13, 2020 at: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/gesundheit/gesundheitszustand/sterblichkeit-todesursachen.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dodge JE, Covens AL, Lacchetti C. et al; Gynecology Cancer Disease Site Group. Preoperative identification of a suspicious adnexal mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2012; 126 (01) 157-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW. et al; EXCEL Trial Investigators. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2016; 375 (23) 2223-2235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP. et al; SYNTAX Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 2013 Feb 7;368(6):584] N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (10) 961-972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A. et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. [published correction appears in Eur Heart J. 2019 Oct 1;40(37):3096] Eur Heart J 2019; 40 (02) 87-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F. et al; Authors/Task Force members. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 2014; 35 (37) 2541-2619
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Winkler B, Heinisch PP, Zuk G. et al. Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation: excellent outcome and life expectancy after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Swiss Med Wkly 2017; 147: w14474
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Repossini A, Di Bacco L, Nicoli F. et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass: twenty-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 158 (01) 127-138.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Seo DH, Kim JS, Park KH, Lim C, Chung SR, Kim DJ. SeSeo DH. Mid-term results of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 51 (01) 8-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Stähli BE, Tasnady H, Lüscher TF. et al. Early and late mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: comparison of the novel EuroScore II with established risk scores. Cardiology 2013; 126 (01) 15-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Raja SG, Garg S, Rochon M, Daley S, De Robertis F, Bahrami T. Short-term clinical outcomes and long-term survival of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 7 (05) 621-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Calafiore AM, Giammarco GD, Teodori G. et al. Left anterior descending coronary artery grafting via left anterior small thoracotomy without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 61 (06) 1658-1663 , discussion 1664–1665
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dominici C, Salsano A, Nenna A. et al. Neurological outcomes after on-pump vs off-pump CABG in patients with cerebrovascular disease. J Card Surg 2019; 34 (10) 941-947
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Reents W, Zacher M, Boergermann J. et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and stroke-exploratory analysis of the GOPCABE trial and methodological considerations. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 66 (06) 464-469
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Zhao DF, Edelman JJ, Seco M. et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting with and without manipulation of the ascending aorta: a network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 69 (08) 924-936
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Loop FD. Internal-thoracic-artery grafts. Biologically better coronary arteries. N Engl J Med 1996; 334 (04) 263-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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 (04) 804-810
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ruel M, Shariff MA, Lapierre H. et al. Results of the minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting angiographic patency study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147 (01) 203-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hage A, Giambruno V, Jones P. et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: comparative effectiveness analysis with long-term follow-up. J Am Heart Assoc 2019; 8 (24) e014204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Tajstra M, Hrapkowicz T, Hawranek M. et al; POL-MIDES Study Investigators. Hybrid coronary revascularization in selected patients with multivessel disease: 5-year clinical outcomes of the prospective randomized pilot study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018; 11 (09) 847-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar