We conducted a systematic review of all available evidence on the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).
Methods:
A systematic literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed to identify all relevant studies evaluating outcomes of MICS CABG among patients with multivessel CAD and including at least 15 patients with no restriction on the publication date.
Results:
A total of 881 studies were identified, of which 26 studies met the eligibility criteria. The studies included a total of 7,556 patients. The average patient age was 63.3 years (range 49.5 to 69.0 years), male patients were an average of 77.8% (54.0% to 89.8%), and body mass index was 29.8 kg/m2 (24.5 to 30.1 kg/m2). Early mortality and stroke were on average 0.6% (range 0% to 2.0%) and 0.4% (range 0% to 1.3%), respectively. The average number of grafts was 2.8 (range 2.1 to 3.7). The average length of hospital stay was 5.6 days (range 3.1 to 9.3 days).
Conclusions:
MICS CABG appears to be a safe method in well-selected patients with multivessel CAD. This approach is concentrated at dedicated centers, and there is no widespread application, although it has potential to be widely applicable as an alternative for surgical revascularization. However, large randomized controlled studies with longer follow-up are still required to compare the outcomes with conventional CABG and other revascularization strategies.
ByrneRAFremesSCapodannoD, et al. 2022 joint ESC/EACTS review of the 2018 guideline recommendations on the revascularization of left main coronary artery disease in patients at low surgical risk and anatomy suitable for PCI or CABG. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2023; 64: ezad286.
2.
BakaeenFGRuelMCalhoonJH, et al. STS/AATS-endorsed rebuttal to 2023 ACC/AHA chronic coronary disease guideline: a missed opportunity to present accurate and comprehensive revascularization recommendations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2023; 166: 1115–1118.
3.
CalafioreAMGiammarcoGDTeodoriG, et al. Left anterior descending coronary artery grafting via left anterior small thoracotomy without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg1996; 61: 1658–1665.
4.
ThieleHOettelSJacobsS, et al. Comparison of bare-metal stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery: a 5-year follow-up. Circulation2005; 112: 3445–3450.
5.
IqbalMBIlsleyCDe RobertisF, et al. Comparison of outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting using internal mammary graft versus percutaneous coronary intervention for isolated proximal left anterior descending narrowing. Am J Cardiol2017; 119: 719–726.
6.
Sousa-UvaMNeumannFJAhlssonA, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2019; 55: 4–90.
7.
YehCHChangCHLinPJ, et al. Totally minimally invasive cardiac surgery for coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg1998; 14(suppl 1): S43–S47.
8.
GrohMASutherlandSEBurtonHGIII, et al. Port-access coronary artery bypass grafting: technique and comparative results. Ann Thorac Surg1999; 68: 1506–1508.
9.
SrivastavaSPPatelKNSkantharajaR, et al. Off-pump complete revascularization through a left lateral thoracotomy (ThoraCAB): the first 200 cases. Ann Thorac Surg2003; 76: 46–49.
10.
LapierreHChanVSohmerB, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting via a small thoracotomy versus off-pump: a case-matched study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2011; 40: 804–810.
11.
AndrawesPAShariffMANabagiezJP, et al. Evolution of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting: learning curve. Innovations2018; 13: 81–90.
12.
UneDLapierreHSohmerB, et al. Can minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting be initiated and practiced safely? A learning curve analysis. Innovations2013; 8: 403–409.
13.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021; 372: n71.
14.
WuYCChangCHLinPJ, et al. Minimally invasive approach for coronary artery bypass surgery. Int J Cardiol1997; 62(suppl 1): S111–S117.
15.
DoganSGraubitzKAybekT, et al. How safe is the port access technique in minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting?Ann Thorac Surg2002; 74: 1537–1543.
16.
SinghSKMishraSKKumarD, et al. Multivessel total arterial revascularization via left thoracotomy. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann2004; 12: 30–32.
17.
BhaskarJ and
SharmaAK.Off pump coronary artery revascularization via left thoracotomy—early results. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2007; 23: 236–239.
18.
RogersCAPikeKAngeliniGD, et al. An open randomized controlled trial of median sternotomy versus anterolateral left thoracotomy on morbidity and health care resource use in patients having off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: the Sternotomy Versus Thoracotomy (STET) trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2013; 146: 306–316.
19.
RabindranauthPBurnsJGVesseyTT, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with improved clinical outcomes. Innovations2014; 9: 421–426.
20.
ZiankouA and
OstrovskyY.Early and midterm results of no-touch aorta multivessel small thoracotomy coronary artery bypass grafting: a propensity score-matched study. Innovations2015; 10: 258–267.
21.
NambiarPKumarSMittalCM, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting with bilateral internal thoracic arteries: will this be the future?J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2018; 155: 190–197.
22.
DiabMFärberGSponholzC, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting using bilateral internal thoracic arteries through a left-sided minithoracotomy: a single-center starting experience. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2019; 67: 437–443.
23.
GuidaGAGuidaGABrunoVD, et al. Left thoracotomy approach for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: 15 years of experience in 2500 consecutive patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2020; 57: 271–276.
DavierwalaPMVerevkinASgouropoulouS, et al. Minimally invasive coronary bypass surgery with bilateral internal thoracic arteries: early outcomes and angiographic patency. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2021; 162: 1109–1119.
26.
RajputNKKalangiTKVAndappanA, et al. MICS CABG: a single-center experience of the first 100 cases. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2021; 37: 16–26.
27.
ZhangLFuYGongY, et al. Graft patency and completeness of revascularization in minimally invasive multivessel coronary artery bypass surgery. J Card Surg2021; 36: 992–997.
28.
ÇaynakB and
SicimH.Routine minimally invasive approach via left anterior mini-thoracotomy in multivessel coronary revascularization. J Card Surg2022; 37: 769–776.
29.
TachibanaKKikuchiKNarayamaK, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting with ultrasonically skeletonized internal thoracic artery. JTCVS Tech2022; 14: 107–113.
30.
YangDZhangKLiJ, et al. Ninety-seven cases of experiences with the left thoracotomy approach for off-pump conventional revascularization: a retrospective cohort study. J Thorac Dis2022; 14: 3915–3923.
31.
BabliakODemianenkoVMarchenkoA, et al. Left anterior minithoracotomy as a first-choice approach for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting and selective combined procedures. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2023; 64: ezad182.
32.
GuoMHToubarOIssaH, et al. Long-term survival, cardiovascular, and functional outcomes after minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting in 566 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. Epub ahead of print 6 August 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.07.047.
33.
KyaruziMGülmezH and
DemirsoyE.Can minimally invasive multivessel coronary revascularization be a routine approach?Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2023; 71: 455–461.
34.
SellinCAschSBelmenaiA, et al. Early results of total coronary revascularization via left anterior thoracotomy. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2023; 71: 448–454.
35.
SolankiPBVadodariaNKanzariaH, et al. A single-center experience involving the first 50 patients of minimally invasive cardiac surgery of coronary artery bypass grafting: at district level. Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention2023; 22: 3592.
36.
KolhPWijnsWDanchinN, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2010; 38: S1–S52.
37.
McGinnJTJrUsmanSLapierreH, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting: dual-center experience in 450 consecutive patients. Circulation2009; 120(11 suppl): S78–S84.
38.
KikuchiKChenXMoriM, et al. Perioperative outcomes of off-pump minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting with bilateral internal thoracic arteries under direct vision. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2017; 24: 696–701.
39.
SefD and
BirdiI.Clinically significant incidental findings during preoperative computed tomography of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2020; 31: 629–631.
40.
BjörklundENielsenSJHanssonEC, et al. Secondary prevention medications after coronary artery bypass grafting and long-term survival: a population-based longitudinal study from the SWEDEHEART registry. Eur Heart J2020; 41: 1653–1661.
41.
ShahianDMO’BrienSMShengS, et al. Predictors of long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (the ASCERT study). Circulation2012; 125: 1491–1500.
42.
FernandezFGShahianDMKormosR, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database 2019 annual report. Ann Thorac Surg2019; 108: 1625–1632.
43.
RuelMShariffMALapierreH, et al. Results of the Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Angiographic Patency Study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2014; 147: 203–208.
44.
BabliakODemianenkoVMelnykY, et al. Multivessel arterial revascularization via left anterior thoracotomy. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2020; 32: 655–662.
45.
YilmazARobicBStarinieriP, et al. A new viewpoint on endoscopic CABG: technique description and clinical experience. J Cardiol2020; 75: 614–620.
46.
RodriguezMLLapierreHRSohmerBF, et al. Repeat revascularization after minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting: is it a problem?Innovations2017; 12: 269–274.
47.
RobinsonNBSefDGaudinoM, et al. Postcardiac surgery myocardial ischemia: why, when, and how to intervene. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2023; 165: 687–695.
48.
NambiarPKumarSMittalCM, et al. Outcomes of bilateral internal thoracic arteries in minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting with analogy to the SYNTAX Trial. Innovations2019; 14: 227–235.
49.
ThieleRHReaKMTurrentineFE, et al. Standardization of care: impact of an enhanced recovery protocol on length of stay, complications, and direct costs after colorectal surgery. J Am Coll Surg2015; 220: 430–443.
50.
SefD and
RajaSG.Bilateral internal thoracic artery use in coronary artery bypass grafting in the post-ART era—perspective. Int J Surg2021; 86: 1–4.
51.
CullerSDKugelmassADBrownPP, et al. Trends in coronary revascularization procedures among Medicare beneficiaries between 2008 and 2012. Circulation2015; 131: 362–370.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
