OBJECTIVE: Robotic coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was shown to be a safe and feasible method for the treatment of coronary artery disease in highly selected patients. However, long-term outcome data comparing robotic CABG with conventional CABG are still missing. Therefore, we aimed to compare robotic with conventional CABG in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Of 2947 consecutive elective patients with coronary artery disease operated at a single center between 2001 and 2013, 280 underwent robotic CABG. After propensity score matching, 134 pairs of robotic versus conventional CABG (age = 62 ± 10 years, log EuroScore = 2.4 ± 2.4% vs. mean ± SD age = 63 ± 10 years, log EuroScore 2.5 ± 1.7%, respectively; all P > 0.05) were formed. The mean ± SD follow-up was 6.6 ± 3.2 years. RESULTS: There was no difference in perioperative mortality (robotic = 0% vs. conventional = 1.5%, P = 0.154), myocardial infarction (robotic = 0% vs. conventional = 2.2%, P = 0.08), and stroke rate (robotic = 0% vs. conventional = 0.7%, P = 0.318) between the groups. Longer cardiopulmonary bypass (robotic = 112 ± 100 minutes vs. conventional = 67 ± 48 minutes, P < 0.0001) and cross-clamp times (robotic = 68 ± 54 minutes vs. conventional = 38 ± 27 minutes, P < 0.0001) were observed in robotic patients. Long-term follow-up yielded equivalent results in terms of survival (1, 5, and 10 years: robotic = 99.3%, 96.9%, and 81.3% vs. conventional = 96.3%, 92.2%, and 82.6%, respectively; log-rank P = 0.187) and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebral events at 1, 5, and 10 years after procedure (robotic = 90.6%, 77.7%, 70.1% vs. conventional = 94.1%, 82.2%, 66.6%; log-rank P = 0.790). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes of robotic CABG are comparable with conventional CABG for selected patients. Longer operative times of robotic CABG do not influence the excellent long-term outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Robotic coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was shown to be a safe and feasible method for the treatment of coronary artery disease in highly selected patients. However, long-term outcome data comparing robotic CABG with conventional CABG are still missing. Therefore, we aimed to compare robotic with conventional CABG in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Of 2947 consecutive elective patients with coronary artery disease operated at a single center between 2001 and 2013, 280 underwent robotic CABG. After propensity score matching, 134 pairs of robotic versus conventional CABG (age = 62 ± 10 years, log EuroScore = 2.4 ± 2.4% vs. mean ± SD age = 63 ± 10 years, log EuroScore 2.5 ± 1.7%, respectively; all P > 0.05) were formed. The mean ± SD follow-up was 6.6 ± 3.2 years. RESULTS: There was no difference in perioperative mortality (robotic = 0% vs. conventional = 1.5%, P = 0.154), myocardial infarction (robotic = 0% vs. conventional = 2.2%, P = 0.08), and stroke rate (robotic = 0% vs. conventional = 0.7%, P = 0.318) between the groups. Longer cardiopulmonary bypass (robotic = 112 ± 100 minutes vs. conventional = 67 ± 48 minutes, P < 0.0001) and cross-clamp times (robotic = 68 ± 54 minutes vs. conventional = 38 ± 27 minutes, P < 0.0001) were observed in robotic patients. Long-term follow-up yielded equivalent results in terms of survival (1, 5, and 10 years: robotic = 99.3%, 96.9%, and 81.3% vs. conventional = 96.3%, 92.2%, and 82.6%, respectively; log-rank P = 0.187) and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebral events at 1, 5, and 10 years after procedure (robotic = 90.6%, 77.7%, 70.1% vs. conventional = 94.1%, 82.2%, 66.6%; log-rank P = 0.790). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes of robotic CABG are comparable with conventional CABG for selected patients. Longer operative times of robotic CABG do not influence the excellent long-term outcomes.
Authors: Adam S Evans; Menachem M Weiner; Shahzad Shaefi; Prakash A Patel; Matthew M Townsley; Abirami Kumaresan; Jared W Feinman; Ashley V Fritz; Archer K Martin; Toby B Steinberg; J Ross Renew; Jane L Gui; Brian Radvansky; Himani Bhatt; Sudhakar Subramani; Archit Sharma; Jacob T Gutsche; John G Augoustides; Harish Ramakrishna Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Karel M Van Praet; Markus Kofler; Timo Z Nazari Shafti; Alaa Abd El Al; Antonia van Kampen; Andrea Amabile; Gianluca Torregrossa; Jörg Kempfert; Volkmar Falk; Husam H Balkhy; Stephan Jacobs Journal: Interv Cardiol Date: 2021-05-19