Objective To compare the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) and traditional CABG in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods From 2019 to 2021, the patients who received CABG by the same medical group in the Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery Center of Anzhen Hospital were retrospectively enrolled. According to the surgery methods, the patients were divided into two groups: a MICS CABG group and a conventional group. The perioperative and postoperative follow-up data of patients were collected. The main observation results included all cause death events, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular, revascularization, and adverse wound healing. Results According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 140 patients were enrolled, including 66 patients in the MICS CABG group (56 males and 10 females, aged 61.83±8.94 years), and 74 patients in the conventional group (55 males and 19 females, aged 58.61±8.26 years). Compared with the conventional group, patients in the MICS CABG group had longer median surgical time (4.50 h vs. 4.00 h, P=0.005), less intraoperative bleeding (600.00 mL vs. 700.00 mL, P=0.020), and a lower rate of secondary debridement and suturing of surgical wounds (4.5% vs. 16.2%, P=0.023). The median follow-up time was 2.54 years. There was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (7.6% vs. 5.4%), all-cause mortality (0 vs. 0), myocardial infarction (3.0% vs. 2.7%), cerebrovascular events (4.5% vs. 2.7%), and revascularization (0 vs. 0) between the two groups of patients during the postoperative follow-up (P>0.05). Conclusion MICS CABG can achieve the same revascularization effect as traditional CABG in patients with CHD and DM. MICS CABG can effectively reduce adverse clinical outcomes or complications such as adverse chest wound healing and slow postoperative recovery of body function in patients with DM.
Objective To investigate the perioperative clinical effects and follow-up results of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in thoracotomy. Methods The patients who received off-pump CABG in Beijing Anzhen Hospital from January 2017 to October 2021 were collected. Among them, the patients receiving MICS CABG performed by the same surgeon were divided into a minimally invasive group, and the patients receiving median thoracotomy were into a conventional group. By propensity score matching, preoperative data were balanced. Perioperative and postoperative follow-up data of the two groups were compared. Results A total of 890 patients were collected. There were 211 males and 28 females, aged 60.54±9.40 years in the minimally invasive group, and 487 males and 164 females, aged 62.31±8.64 years in the conventional group. After propensity score matching, there were 239 patients in each group. Compared with the conventional group, patients in the minimally invasive group had longer operation time, shorter drainage duration, less drainage volume on the first postoperative day, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower rate of positive inotropenic drugs use, while there was no statistical difference in the mean number of bypass grafts, ICU stay, ventilator-assisted time, blood transfusion rate or perioperative complications (P＞0.05). During the median follow-up of 2.25 years, there was no statistical difference in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, including all-cause death, stroke or revascularization between the two groups (P＞0.05). ConclusionReasonable clinical strategies can ensure perioperative and mid-term surgical outcomes of MICS CABG not inferior to conventional CABG. In addition, MICS CABG has the advantages in terms of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative drainage volume, and rate of positive inotropic drugs use.
Objective To compare the mid- and long-term efficacy of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS) versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods This study analyzed 679 patients with coronary heart disease treated in the Minimally Invasive Heart Center of Beijing Anzhen Hospital from 2015 to 2019, including 532 males and 147 females with an average age of 61.16 years. A total of 281 patients underwent MICS (a MICS group) and 398 patients underwent conventional CABG (a CABG group). The clinical data of the patients in the two groups were analyzed. ResultsThe average operation time was longer (P<0.001), the total hospital stay was shorter (P<0.001), and the amount of drainage 24 h after the operation was less (P=0.029) in the MICS group. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of perioperative complications between the two groups. The median follow-up time was 2.68 years. The follow-up results showed that the total incidence of cumulative main adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in the CABG group was higher at 2 years (6.2% vs. 3.8%) and 4 years (9.3% vs. 7.6%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). There was no statistical difference in 2- or 4-year all-cause death between the two groups (3.5% vs. 2.8%, 5.6% vs. 2.8%, P>0.05). At the same time, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke or revascularization between the two groups (P>0.05). ConclusionCompared with conventional CABG, MICS can achieve satisfactory mid- and long-term outcomes.