Long-term follow-up of patients with complex coronary artery disease treated with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass.

BACKGROUND

Patients with complex coronary artery disease (CAD) may benefit from surgical myocardial revascularization but weighing the risk of peri-operative complications against the expected merit is difficult. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) procedures are less invasive, provide the prognostic advantage of operative revascularization of the left anterior descending artery and may be integrated in hybrid strategies. Herein, the outcomes between patients with coronary 1-vessel disease (1-VD) and patients with 2-VD and 3-VD after MIDCAB procedures were compared in this single-center study.

METHODS

Between 1998 and 2018, 1363 patients underwent MIDCAB at the documented institution. 628 (46.1%) patients had 1-VD, 434 (31.9%) patients 2-VD and 300 (22.0%) patients suffered from 3-VD. Data of patients with 2-VD, and 3-VD were pooled as multi-VD (MVD).

RESULTS

Patients with MVD were older (66.2 ± 10.9 vs. 62.9 ± 11.2 years; p < 0.001) and presented with a higher EuroScore II (2.10 [0.4; 34.2] vs. 1.2 [0.4; 12.1]; p < 0.001). Procedure time was longer in MVD patients (131.1 ± 50.3 min vs. 122.2 ± 34.5 min; p < 0.001). Post-operatively, MVD patients had a higher stroke rate (17 [2.3%] vs. 4 [0.6%]; p = 0.014). No difference in 30-day mortality was observed (12 [1.6%] vs. 4 [0.6%]; p = 0.128). Survival after 15 years was significantly lower in MVD patients (p < 0.01). Hybrid procedures were planned in 295 (40.2%) patients with MVD and realized in 183 (61.2%) cases. MVD patients with incomplete hybrid procedures had a significantly decreased long-term survival compared to cases with complete revascularization (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass procedures are low-risk surgical procedures. If hybrid procedures have been planned, completion of revascularization should be a major goal.