Emad A Barsoum1, Basem Azab2, Neeraj Shah1, Nileshkumar Patel1, Masood A Shariff3, James Lafferty4, John P Nabagiez3, Joseph T McGinn5. 1. Department of Medicine, Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, NY, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, NY, USA basemnady2000@yahoo.com. 3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, NY, USA. 4. Department of Cardiology, Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, NY, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, NY, USA Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Staten Island University Hospital, Staten Island, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Ischaemic heart disease is the leading cause of death in the elderly population. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery via sternotomy remains the standard of care for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS)-CABG via left thoracotomy has been used as an alternative to sternotomy. The aim of our study was to assess the overall survival after MICS-CABG and sternotomy-CABG in elderly patients with CAD. METHODS: This observational study included patients who underwent coronary bypass from 2005 to 2008. Patients 75 years and older (n = 159) were included in the final analysis. Each arm was further divided into the MICS-CABG group or sternotomy-CABG group. Primary outcome and overall survival were obtained from our records and the social security death index. RESULTS: Among patients 75 years and older (159 patients), MICS-CABG had a significantly lower 5-year all-cause mortality than sternotomy-CABG (19.7 vs 47.7%, P < 0.001). Similarly, Kaplan-Meier curves showed significantly higher overall survival in the MICS-CABG group compared with sternotomy-CABG (log-rank P = 0.014). After adjusting for confounders, MICS-CABG demonstrated a lower mortality than sternotomy-CABG (HR 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.97, P = 0.04). For patients less than 75 years old, MICS and sternotomy groups had similar survival according to both uni- and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The adjusted models demonstrated that MICS-CABG has a significantly better long-term survival than sternotomy-CABG despite slightly differing baseline characteristics. Further studies are needed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of the two approaches among the elderly population.
OBJECTIVES: Ischaemic heart disease is the leading cause of death in the elderly population. Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery via sternotomy remains the standard of care for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS)-CABG via left thoracotomy has been used as an alternative to sternotomy. The aim of our study was to assess the overall survival after MICS-CABG and sternotomy-CABG in elderly patients with CAD. METHODS: This observational study included patients who underwent coronary bypass from 2005 to 2008. Patients 75 years and older (n = 159) were included in the final analysis. Each arm was further divided into the MICS-CABG group or sternotomy-CABG group. Primary outcome and overall survival were obtained from our records and the social security death index. RESULTS: Among patients 75 years and older (159 patients), MICS-CABG had a significantly lower 5-year all-cause mortality than sternotomy-CABG (19.7 vs 47.7%, P < 0.001). Similarly, Kaplan-Meier curves showed significantly higher overall survival in the MICS-CABG group compared with sternotomy-CABG (log-rank P = 0.014). After adjusting for confounders, MICS-CABG demonstrated a lower mortality than sternotomy-CABG (HR 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.97, P = 0.04). For patients less than 75 years old, MICS and sternotomy groups had similar survival according to both uni- and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The adjusted models demonstrated that MICS-CABG has a significantly better long-term survival than sternotomy-CABG despite slightly differing baseline characteristics. Further studies are needed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of the two approaches among the elderly population.