Outcomes of robotic coronary artery bypass versus nonrobotic coronary artery bypass.
coronary artery bypass
minimally invasive coronary revascularization
national inpatient sample
robotic cardiac surgery
Journal
Journal of cardiac surgery
ISSN: 1540-8191
Titre abrégé: J Card Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8908809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Sep 2021
Historique:
revised:
19
04
2021
received:
10
03
2021
accepted:
17
05
2021
pubmed:
7
6
2021
medline:
12
8
2021
entrez:
6
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Robotic coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) has developed in recent decades, however, prior studies showed conflicting result of robotic CABG compared to nonrobotic CABG in terms of mortality, morbidity, and cost. Herein, we sought to analyze the in-hospital outcomes and health care utilization after robotic CABG compared to nonrobotic CABG, based on data from a nationally representative sample. Patients who underwent CABG were identified using the national inpatient sample. Endpoints were in-hospital outcomes, length of stay, and total cost. Procedure-related complications were identified via international classification of diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 coding and propensity score matching analysis was performed. A total of 1,204,125 weighted adults underwent nonrobotic CABG and 7355 underwent robotic CABG in the United States between 2012 and 2017. The comparison of 7330 pairs after propensity score matching showed that in-hospital mortality was higher for those who underwent nonrobotic CABG compared to those who underwent robotic CABG (2.1% vs. 1.1%, p = .029). Similarly, the rates of acute kidney injury, transfusion, postoperative hemorrhage, length of stay, and total cost were higher for nonrobotic CABG compared to robotic CABG (all p < .05). The proportions of routine discharges with (34.5% vs. 40.0%) or without (39.7% vs. 45.0%) home health care were higher among those who underwent robotic, whereas the proportion of transfer to skilled nursing facility/nursing home was more frequent for cases of nonrobotic CABG (22.4% vs. 13.4%). Robotic CABG was associated with lower rates of in-hospital mortality, acute kidney injury, transfusion, postoperative hemorrhage, total cost, and shorter hospital stay compared to nonrobotic CABG.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Robotic coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) has developed in recent decades, however, prior studies showed conflicting result of robotic CABG compared to nonrobotic CABG in terms of mortality, morbidity, and cost. Herein, we sought to analyze the in-hospital outcomes and health care utilization after robotic CABG compared to nonrobotic CABG, based on data from a nationally representative sample.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients who underwent CABG were identified using the national inpatient sample. Endpoints were in-hospital outcomes, length of stay, and total cost. Procedure-related complications were identified via international classification of diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 coding and propensity score matching analysis was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 1,204,125 weighted adults underwent nonrobotic CABG and 7355 underwent robotic CABG in the United States between 2012 and 2017. The comparison of 7330 pairs after propensity score matching showed that in-hospital mortality was higher for those who underwent nonrobotic CABG compared to those who underwent robotic CABG (2.1% vs. 1.1%, p = .029). Similarly, the rates of acute kidney injury, transfusion, postoperative hemorrhage, length of stay, and total cost were higher for nonrobotic CABG compared to robotic CABG (all p < .05). The proportions of routine discharges with (34.5% vs. 40.0%) or without (39.7% vs. 45.0%) home health care were higher among those who underwent robotic, whereas the proportion of transfer to skilled nursing facility/nursing home was more frequent for cases of nonrobotic CABG (22.4% vs. 13.4%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic CABG was associated with lower rates of in-hospital mortality, acute kidney injury, transfusion, postoperative hemorrhage, total cost, and shorter hospital stay compared to nonrobotic CABG.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3187-3192Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
ElBardissi AW, Aranki SF, Sheng S, O'Brien SM, Greenberg CC, Gammie JS. Trends in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143(2):273-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.10.029
Leyvi G, Forest SJ, Srinivas VS, et al. Robotic coronary artery bypass grafting decreases 30-day complication rate, length of stay, and acute care facility discharge rate compared with conventional surgery. Innovations. 2014;9(5):361-367. (discussion 367). https://doi.org/10.1097/IMI.0000000000000095
Cavallaro P, Rhee AJ, Chiang Y, Itagaki S, Seigerman M, Chikwe J. In-hospital mortality and morbidity after robotic coronary artery surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2015;29(1):27-31. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2014.03.009
Dhawan R, Roberts JD, Wroblewski K, Katz JA, Raman J, Chaney MA. Multivessel beating heart robotic myocardial revascularization increases morbidity and mortality. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143(5):1056-1061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.06.023
Hwang W, Weller W, Ireys H, Anderson G. Out-of-pocket medical spending for care of chronic conditions. Health Aff. 2001;20(6):267-278.
Khera R, Angraal S, Couch T, et al. Adherence to methodological standards in research using the national inpatient sample. JAMA. 2017;318(20):2011-2018.
Stone GW, Kappetein AP, Sabik JF, et al. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(19):1820-1830. (Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 2020;382(11):1078). https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1909406
Thuijs DJFM, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10206):1325-1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31997-X
Hata R, Kubo S, Tsuneyoshi H, et al. Long-term outcomes of three-vessel coronary artery disease after coronary revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention using second-generation drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2020;35(2):194-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-019-00599-5
Kuno T, Ueyama H, Rao SV, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J. 2020;227:9-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2020.06.001
Cheng N, Gao C, Yang M, Wu Y, Wang G, Xiao C. Analysis of the learning curve for beating heart, totally endoscopic, coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(5):1832-1836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.02.002
Khorgami Z, Li WT, Jackson TN, Howard CA, Sclabas GM. The cost of robotics: an analysis of the added costs of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery using the National Inpatient Sample. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(7):2217-2221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6507-3