Literature DB >> 25064052

Outcomes after different non-sternotomy approaches to left single-vessel revascularization: a comparative study with up to 10-year follow-up.

Anton Sabashnikov1, Nikhil P Patil2, Alexander Weymann2, Prashant N Mohite2, Bartlomiej Zych2, Diana García Sáez2, Aron-Frederik Popov2, Thorsten Wahlers3, Thorsten Wittwer3, Jens Wippermann3, Mohamed Amrani2, Richard Trimlett2, André R Simon2, John Pepper2, Toufan Bahrami2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Various non-sternotomy approaches have been used for left internal mammary artery (LIMA) grafting in left single-vessel revascularization. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of three different non-sternotomy techniques on long-term outcomes after left single-vessel revascularization.
METHODS: A total of 502 patients having single-vessel LAD disease treated from April 2003 to May 2013 by minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB), endoscopically assisted coronary artery bypass grafting (EACAB) or robotically assisted direct coronary artery bypass grafting (RADCAB) were reviewed. In all cases, distal anastomoses were performed through anterolateral minithoracotomy incisions. In-hospital and long-term (10-year) outcomes were compared using standard and propensity score-adjusted analyses.
RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-nine patients had MIDCAB, 76 had EACAB and 236 had RADCAB. After propensity score matching, RADCAB patients had significantly longer operative duration (P < 0.001), whereas MIDCAB and RADCAB patients had significantly higher incidence of postoperative angina over the follow-up (P = 0.034). The groups were comparable regarding in-hospital mortality and reintervention rate as well as incidence of myocardial infarction, reoperations, reinterventions and cardiac death. All groups showed comparable long-term survival (P = 0.943).
CONCLUSIONS: MIDCAB, EACAB and RADCAB are associated with similar long-term survival and incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in single-vessel surgical revascularization. However, the endoscopic approach was found to be free from the disadvantages of longer operating duration observed in RADCAB or higher incidence of angina and shorter freedom from MACEs observed in both MIDCAB and RADCAB groups.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Endoscopically assisted coronary artery bypass grafting (EACAB); Left internal mammary artery harvesting; Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB); Robotically assisted direct coronary artery bypass grafting (RADCAB); Survival

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25064052     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu287

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  9 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review on robotic coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Authors:  Christopher Cao; Praveen Indraratna; Mathew Doyle; David H Tian; Kevin Liou; Stine Munkholm-Larsen; Ciska Uys; Sohaib Virk
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2016-11

2.  Comparing patient outcomes following minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery vs. coronary artery bypass grafting: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Lin Liang; Xiaolong Ma; Qingyu Kong; Wei Xiao; Jiaji Liu; Liqun Chi; Junming Zhu
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2022-06

3.  Short and long-term results of endoscopic atraumatic coronary artery off-pump bypass grafting in patients with left anterior descending artery stenosis.

Authors:  Rafik Abusamra; Marek Król; Krzysztof Milewski; Mateusz Kachel; Loai Abudaqa; Justyna Jankowska-Sanetra; Kamil Derbisz; Krzysztof Sanetra; Anna Sobieszek; Piotr P Buszman; Wojciech Wojakowski; Paweł E Buszman; Andrzej Bochenek; Marek Cisowski
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 2.737

4.  Minimally invasive surgical techniques in the era of hybrid coronary revascularization: additional benefits for the elderly patients?

Authors:  Antonio Nenna; Mario Lusini; Salvatore Matteo Greco; Elvio Covino; Massimo Chello
Journal:  J Geriatr Cardiol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.327

Review 5.  Minimally invasive and robotic coronary artery bypass grafting-a 25-year review.

Authors:  Johannes Bonatti; Stephanie Wallner; Ingo Crailsheim; Martin Grabenwöger; Bernhard Winkler
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Early home discharge after robot-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting.

Authors:  Alexander Spanjersberg; Leendert Hoek; Jan Paul Ottervanger; Thi-Yen Nguyen; Emel Kaplan; Roland Laurens; Sandeep Singh
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2022-06-15

7.  Robot-assisted vs. conventional MIDCAB: A propensity-matched analysis.

Authors:  Jan Gofus; Stepan Cerny; Youssef Shahin; Zdenek Sorm; Martin Vobornik; Petr Smolak; Ananya Sethi; Samuel Marcinov; Mikita Karalko; James Chek; Jan Harrer; Jan Vojacek; Marek Pojar
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-08-30

8.  Medical robots in cardiac surgery - application and perspectives.

Authors:  Karolina Kroczek; Piotr Kroczek; Zbigniew Nawrat
Journal:  Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol       Date:  2017-03-31

9.  Vascular restenosis in coronary artery bypass grafting might be associated with VEGF-C/VEGFR-3 signaling pathway.

Authors:  Zuzanna Podemska-Jedrzejczak; Agnieszka Malinska; Patrycja Sujka-Kordowska; Michal Nowicki; Mateusz Puslecki; Marek Jemielity; Bartlomiej Perek
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2018-03-20       Impact factor: 2.037

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.