Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) has emerged as an alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting; however, its adoption remains limited due to technical complexity and a steep learning curve, particularly in patients requiring multi-vessel revascularization. Objective data defining the learning curve of multi-vessel MIDCAB are scarce.

Methods

This retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent multi-vessel MIDCAB between January 2020 and December 2025. Patients requiring single-vessel revascularization were intentionally excluded to ensure procedural homogeneity. The learning curve was evaluated using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis, and cases were stratified into three phases based on CUSUM inflection points. Perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared across learning curve phases.

Results

A total of 169 patients were analyzed. CUSUM analysis identified three distinct learning phases: an initial learning phase (cases 1–48), a transition phase (cases 49–107), and a proficiency phase (cases 108–169). With increasing surgical experience, cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time, and total operative duration decreased significantly. The rate of conversion to open surgery declined markedly across learning phases, whereas in-hospital mortality and major postoperative complications remained low and comparable. These findings indicate improved procedural efficiency without compromising early clinical outcomes.

Conclusions

Multi-vessel MIDCAB is associated with a substantial learning curve that can be objectively characterized using CUSUM analysis. Surgical proficiency is achieved only after a considerable number of cases, emphasizing the importance of adequate case volume and structured performance monitoring. These results provide a practical benchmark for centers aiming to adopt or expand multi-vessel MIDCAB programs.

Keywords

coronary artery bypass grafting coronary artery disease coronary heart disease learning curve minimally invasive surgery

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Roth

Johnson

Abajobir

, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of cardiovascular diseases for 10 causes, 1990 to 2015. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70: 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.04.052

Vervoort

Swain

Pezzella

, et al. Cardiac surgery in low- and middle-income countries: a state-of-the-art review. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; 111: 1394–1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.05.181

Kocaoglu

Ovali

. Early results of female patients who underwent mitral valve surgery through periareolar incision approach. Perfusion. 2025 Sep; 40(6): 1455–1460.

Sicim

Fedakar

. Left anterior mini-thoracotomy vs. conventional sternotomy in On-Pump multivessel coronary revascularization. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg 2025; 40(3): e20230299. https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2023-0299

Scarborough

Shah

Scarborough

, et al. Patient satisfaction with minimally invasive cardiac Incisions: a retrospective single-centre survey. Cureus 2025; 17(8): e90852. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.90852

Van den Eynde

Vaesen Bentein

Decaluwé

, et al. Safe implementation of robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass: application of learning curves and cumulative sum analysis. J Thorac Dis 2021; 13(7): 4260–4270. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-21-775

Kanber

Köseoğlu

Şahin

. Assessing the learning curve of the minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass technique. Eur Arch Med Res 2023; 39(3): 141–145. https://doi.org/10.4274/eamr.galenos.2023.75537

Elsebaie

Boutros

Awad

, et al. Defining the learning curve in minimally invasive cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2025; 29: S0003–S4975(25)00800-8.

Kayatta

Halkos

Narayan

. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 34(Suppl 3): 302–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-017-0631-x

10.

Torregrossa

Dokollari

, et al. Establishing a robotic coronary artery bypass surgery program: a narrative review. J Vis Surg 2023; 9: 4. https://doi.org/10.21037/jovs-22-11

11.

Jonsson

Binongo

Patel

, et al. Mastering the learning curve for robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2023; 115(5): 1118–1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2023.02.045

12.

Bonatti

Schachner

Bernecker

, et al. Robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass: program development and learning curve issues. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004; 127(2): 504–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.09.005

13.

Holzhey

Jacobs

Walther

, et al. Cumulative sum failure analysis for eight surgeons performing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 134(3): 663–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.03.029

14.

Cheng

Bainbridge

Martin

, et al. Does off-pump coronary artery bypass reduce mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization when compared with conventional coronary artery bypass? A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Anesthesiology 2005; 102(1): 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200501000-00028

15.

Halkos

Liberman

Devireddy

, et al. Early clinical and angiographic outcomes after robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147(1): 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.09.010

16.

Sef

Thet

Hashim

, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review. Innovations (Phila) 2024; 19(4): 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/15569845241265867

Defining the learning curve of multi-vessel MIDCAB using CUSUM analysis