Minimally invasive versus conventional extracorporeal circulation circuits in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: a propensity-matched analysis

Abstract

Objectives:

Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation circuits provide several advantages compared to conventional extracorporeal circulation circuits. We compared the results of a minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation system with those of conventional extracorporeal circulation system, in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.

Methods:

We identified 753 consecutive patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting at our centre between October 2014 and September 2016. These patients were divided into two groups: a minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation group (M, n = 229) and a conventional extracorporeal circulation group (C, n = 524). Baseline parameters, details of cardiac surgery as well as postoperative complications and outcomes were compared by means of a propensity-matched analysis of 180 matched pairs.

Results:

The median EuroSCORE II was 1.3%. Transfusion requirement of packed red blood cells (p = 0.002) was lower in Group M compared to conventional extracorporeal circulation systems. There were no differences in hospital mortality or in rates of adverse events between the matched groups. Total in-hospital mortality of the cohort was 1.7%.

Conclusion:

The use of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation is associated with a significantly lower use of blood products after isolated coronary revascularisation. There were no differences concerning duration of surgery, complication rates and mortality between the groups. Therefore, the application of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation systems should be considered as preferred technique in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting procedures.

Keywords

minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation circuits coronary artery bypass surgery

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Wippermann

Albes

Hartrumpf

et al. Comparison of minimally invasive closed circuit extracorporeal circulation with conventional cardiopulmonary bypass and with off-pump technique in CABG patients: selected parameters of coagulation and inflammatory system. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005; 28: 127–132.

Curtis

Vohra

Ohri

SK.

Mini extracorporeal circuit cardiopulmonary bypass system: a review. Perfusion 2010; 25: 115–124.

Vohra

Whistance

Modi

et al. The inflammatory response to miniaturised extracorporeal circulation: a review of the literature. Mediators Inflamm 2009; 2009: 707042.

Fromes

Gaillard

Ponzio

et al. Reduction of the inflammatory response following coronary bypass grafting with total minimal extracorporeal circulation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2002; 22: 527–533.

Anastasiadis

Murkin

Antonitsis

et al. Use of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation in cardiac surgery: principles, definitions and potential benefits. A position paper from the Minimal invasive Extra-Corporeal Technologies international Society (MiECTiS). Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2016; 22: 647–662.

Bauer

Hausmann

Schaarschmidt

et al. Is 300 seconds ACT Safe and efficient during MiECC procedures. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019; 67: 191–202.

Meybohm

Muellenbach

Keller

et al. Patient blood management in der Herzchirurgie. Zeitschrift Herz Thorax Gefasschirurgie 2017; 31: 247–265.

Nishida

Aomi

Tomizawa

et al. Comparative study of biocompatibility between the open circuit and closed circuit in cardiopulmonary bypass. Artif Organs 1999; 23: 547–551.

Ask

Holt

Smith

In vivo comparison study of FDA-approved surface-modifying additives and poly-2-methoxyethylacrylate circuit surfaces coatings during cardiopulmonary bypass. J Extra Corpor Technol 2006; 38: 27–32.

10.

Tanaka

Motomura

Kawada

et al. Blood compatible aspects of poly(2-methoxyethylacrylate) (PMEA)-relationship between protein adsorption and platelet adhesion on PMEA surface. Biomaterials 2000; 21: 1471–1481.

11.

Lau

Shah

Kelleher

et al. Coronary artery surgery: cardiotomy suction or cell salvage? J Cardiothorac Surg 2007; 2: 46.

12.

El-Essawi

Hajek

Skorpil

et al. A prospective randomised multicentre clinical comparison of a minimised perfusion circuit versus conventional cardiopulmonary bypass. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017; 38: 91–97.

13.

Pereira

Zumba

Batista

et al. Comparison of two technics of extracorporeal circulation (Conventional and Mini ECC), in the trans and post-operative periods of cardiac surgery. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc 2015: 433–442.

14.

Alsatli

Mini cardiopulmonary bypass: anesthetic considerations. Anesth Essays Res 2012; 6: 10.

15.

Murphy

Angelini

GD.

Indications for blood transfusion in cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 82: 2323–2334.

16.

LaPar

Crosby

Ailawadi

et al. Blood product conservation is associated with improved outcomes and reduced costs after cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145: 796–803.

17.

Koch

Duncan

et al. Transfusion in coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with reduced long-term survival. Ann Thorac Surg 2006; 81: 1650–1657.

18.

Murphy

Reeves

Rogers

et al. Increased mortality, postoperative morbidity, and cost after red blood cell transfusion in patients having cardiac surgery. Circulation 2007; 116: 2544–2552.

19.

Murphy

Pike

Rogers

et al. Liberal or restrictive transfusion after cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 997–1008.

20.

Anastasiadis

Antonitsis

Haidich

A-B

et al. Use of minimal extracorporeal circulation improves outcome after heart surgery; a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol 2013; 164: 158–169.