Literature DB >> 33442204

MICS CABG: a single-center experience of the first 100 cases.

Nitin Kumar Rajput1, Tej Kumar Varma Kalangi1, Arun Andappan2, Alok Kumar Swain2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To study the learning curve and outcomes of the first 100 cases of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed at our center.
METHODS: From January 2017 to November 2019, a total of 100 patients underwent CABG via left anterior thoracotomy approach. We have studied the operative times within the MICS CABG patients to analyze our learning curve. We also studied the postoperative outcomes and compared these with those of patients who underwent sternotomy during the same period.
RESULTS: The mean age was 59.33 ± 9.95 (range 37-82) years. The numbers of males and females were 72 and 28 respectively. The preoperative average ejection fraction (EF) was 51.08 ± 9.75%. All these patients underwent CABG via left thoracotomy approach, after satisfying the exclusion criteria. All patients received left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to left anterior descending (LAD) as a standard graft, with the radial artery and saphenous vein being the next alternative conduits. The average length of the incision was 6.06 ± 0.45 cm. Only 2 cases were done on pump. The average number of grafts per patient was 2.33 ± 0.92. The mean operative time was 132.40 ± 11.56 min. The mean duration of ventilation was 4.79 ± 1.90 h and average intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 2.62 ± 0.84 days. There was one conversion and no mortalities in our study. We had analyzed our operative times and noticed a significant reduction after the first 20 cases, which was our learning curve.
CONCLUSION: MICS CABG can be performed for multivessel disease with the same comfort as for a single or a double vessel disease, once the learning curve has been achieved. Only significant difference from the sternotomy approach was noted in the longer operative times for MICS CABG during the learning curve, and not thereafter. Significant benefits of MICS over sternotomy were noticed in the immediate postoperative parameters like duration of ventilation, mean drainage, postoperative pain, ICU stay, and hospital stay, with no difference in postoperative adverse events. © Indian Association of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgeons 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Learning curve; MICS CABG; Multivessel bypass

Year:  2020        PMID: 33442204      PMCID: PMC7778645          DOI: 10.1007/s12055-020-01048-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0970-9134


  15 in total

1.  2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  L David Hillis; Peter K Smith; Jeffrey L Anderson; John A Bittl; Charles R Bridges; John G Byrne; Joaquin E Cigarroa; Verdi J Disesa; Loren F Hiratzka; Adolph M Hutter; Michael E Jessen; Ellen C Keeley; Stephen J Lahey; Richard A Lange; Martin J London; Michael J Mack; Manesh R Patel; John D Puskas; Joseph F Sabik; Ola Selnes; David M Shahian; Jeffrey C Trost; Michael D Winniford
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Can minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting be initiated and practiced safely?: a learning curve analysis.

Authors:  Dai Une; Harry Lapierre; Benjamin Sohmer; Vaneet Rai; Marc Ruel
Journal:  Innovations (Phila)       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec

3.  Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting via a small thoracotomy versus off-pump: a case-matched study.

Authors:  Harry Lapierre; Vincent Chan; Benjamin Sohmer; Thierry G Mesana; Marc Ruel
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2011-03-09       Impact factor: 4.191

4.  The use of intraoperative graft assessment in guiding graft revision.

Authors:  Teresa M Kieser; David P Taggart
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-09

Review 5.  Minimally invasive cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gudrun Dieberg; Neil A Smart; Nicola King
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 4.164

6.  Pain and quality of life after minimally invasive versus conventional cardiac surgery.

Authors:  T Walther; V Falk; S Metz; A Diegeler; R Battellini; R Autschbach; F W Mohr
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  Evolution of Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Learning Curve.

Authors:  Peter A Andrawes; Masood A Shariff; John P Nabagiez; Richard Steward; Basem Azab; Natasha Povar; Mirala Sarza; Seleshi Demissie; Scott M Sadel; Michele Nichols; Joseph T McGinn
Journal:  Innovations (Phila)       Date:  2018 Mar/Apr

8.  Long-Term Outcome of Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: A Single-Center Experience.

Authors:  Shakil Farid; Jason M Ali; Victoria Stohlner; Ruhina Alam; Peter Schofield; Samer Nashef; Ravi De Silva
Journal:  Innovations (Phila)       Date:  2018 Jan/Feb

Review 9.  Minimally Invasive Cardiovascular Surgery: Incisions and Approaches.

Authors:  Nathaniel B Langer; Michael Argenziano
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

Review 10.  Anesthetic challenges in minimally invasive cardiac surgery: Are we moving in a right direction?

Authors:  Vishwas Malik; Ajay Kumar Jha; Poonam Malhotra Kapoor
Journal:  Ann Card Anaesth       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep
View more
  1 in total

1.  Nonsternotomy multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting: A key development in cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Marc Ruel
Journal:  JTCVS Tech       Date:  2021-09-22
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.