Minimally Invasive off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting of the Anterior Descending Artery: Single-Center Experience

Introduction. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) of the anterior descending artery provides a means to avoid artificial circulation and full sternotomy, reducing the risks of associated complications. Aim. To evaluate the short-term results of MIDCAB.

Materials and methods. The retrospective study included a total of 172 patients (132 men and 40 women) who underwent surgery in 2017–2022. The mean age was 60.83 ± 8.36 years, and the BMI was 28.7 (25.8–32.3) kg/m². The left ventricular ejection fraction amounted to 55 (49–59)%. Diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in 27.9% of patients, and atrial fibrillation was identified in 15.1% of patients. The medical history of patients included stroke (4.7%), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, 25.6%), and myocardial infarction (60.5%). The endpoints were in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications.

Results. Hybrid interventions (MIDCAB + PCI) were performed in 4.7% of patients. The surgery took 112(90–130) minutes. Perioperative myocardial infarction and acute kidney injury occurred in 1.2% of patients. No strokes were observed. Atrial fibrillation was diagnosed in 13.4% of patients; reexploration for bleeding occurred in 2.9% of cases; postoperative wound suppuration was observed in 0.6% of patients. The in-hospital mortality amounted to 0.6%. The length of ICU stay was 22 (18–24) hours, and the inpatient stay lasted 9 (8–11) days.

Discussion. MIDCAB shows good short-term results, combining the advantages of minimally invasive access and standard bypass surgery.

Conclusion. MIDCAB is an effective technique to achieve revascularization of the anterior descending artery that ensures low mortality and complication rates.

1. Lawton J.S., Tamis-Holland J.E., Bangalore S., Bates E.R., Beckie T.M., Bischoff J.M., et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79:e21–129. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006

2. Gianoli M., de Jong A.R., Jacob K.A., Namba H.F., van der Kaaij N.P., van der Harst P., et al. Minimally invasive surgery or stenting for left anterior descending artery disease — meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol Hear Vasc. 2022;40:101046. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101046

3. Xu Y., Li Y., Bao W., Qiu S. MIDCAB versus off-pump CABG: Comparative study. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2020;61:120–4. DOI: 10.1016/j.hjc.2018.12.004

4. Kettering K., Dapunt O., Baer F.M. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2004;45:255–64. PMID: 15179338

5. Manuel L., Fong L.S., Betts K., Bassin L., Wolfenden H. LIMA to LAD grafting returns patient survival to age-matched population: 20-year outcomes of MIDCAB surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2022; 35(4):ivac243. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivac243

6. Shabaev I.F., Kozyrin K.A., Tarasov R.S. Long-term outcomes of off-pump minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting of the left anterior descending artery. Patologiya krovoobrashcheniya i kardiokhirurgiya = Circulation Pathology and Cardiac Surgery. 2020;24(3):62–9 (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21688/1681-3472-2020-3-62-69

7. Sheu J.J., Wang J.S., Lai S.T., Yu T.J., Weng Z.C., Shih C.C. Minimally-invasive, direct coronary artery bypass grafting. Chinese Med J. 1998;61:507–12. DOI: 10.21037/amj.2020.03.05

8. Gofus J., Cerny S., Shahin Y., Sorm Z., Vobornik M., Smolak P., et al. Robot-assisted vs. conventional MIDCAB: A propensity-matched analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:943076. DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.943076

9. Lev G.V., Zhbanov I.V., Kiladze I.Z., Uryuzhnikov V.V., Shabalkin B.V. MIDCAB and OPCAB Results for Isolated Left Anterior Descending Disease: A Comparative Analysis. Minimally Invasive Cardiovascular Surgery. 2022;1(1):53–62 (In Russ.).

10. Raja S.G., 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;7:621–7. DOI: 10.21037/acs.2018.06.14

11. Zhang S., Chen S., Yang K., Li Y., Yun Y., Zhang X., et al. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass versus percutaneous coronary intervention for isolated left anterior descending artery stenosis: an updated meta-analysis. Heart Surg Forum. 2023;26:E114–25. DOI: 10.1532/hsf.5211

12. Puskas J.D., Halkos M.E., DeRose J.J., Bagiella E., Miller M.A., Overbey J., et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease: a multicenter observational study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:356–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.05.032

13. Dixon L.K., Akberali U., Di Tommaso E., George S.J., Johnson T.W., Bruno V.D. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2022;359:20–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2022.04.030

14. Nagraj S., Tzoumas A., Kakargias F., Giannopoulos S., Ntoumaziou A., Kokkinidis D.G., et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD): A meta-analysis of 14 studies comprising 4226 patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;100:1182–94. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.30446

15. Zenkov A.A., Isaev M.N., Chernov I.I. Minimally Invasive Multivessel Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: a Single Center’s Experience of 600 Cases. Minimally Invasive Cardiovascular Surgery. 2023;2(1):8–17 (In Russ.).