The efficacy of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (mics cabg) for patients with coronary artery diseases and diabetes: a single center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND

conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CCABG) tends to cause severe complications in patients with comorbid Coronary Artery Diseases (CAD) and diabetes. On the other hand, the Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (MICS CABG) via transthoracic incision is associated with rapid recovery and reduced complications. Adding to the limited literature, this study compares CCABG and MICS CABG in terms of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Herein, 104 CCABG and MICS CABG cases (52 cases each) were included. The patients were recruited from the Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery Center, Anzhen Hospital, between January 2017 and December 2021 and were selected based on the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) model. The key outcomes included All-cause Death, Myocardial Infarction (MI), Cerebrovascular Events, revascularization, Adverse Wound Healing Events and one-year patency of the graft by coronary CTA.

RESULTS

Compared to CCABG, MICS CABG had longer surgical durations [4.25 (1.50) h vs.4.00 (1.13) h, P = 0.028], but showed a reduced intraoperative blood loss [600.00 (400.00) mL vs.700.00 (300.00) mL, P  = 0.032] and a lower secondary incision debridement and suturing rate (5.8% vs.19.2%, P = 0.038). In follow up, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in the cumulative Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Events (MACCEs) incidence (7.7% vs. 5.9%), all-cause mortality (0 vs. 0), MI incidence (1.9% vs. 2.0%), cerebral apoplexy incidence (5.8% vs. 3.9%), and repeated revascularization incidence (0 vs. 0) (P > 0.05). Additionally, coronary CTA results revealed that the two groups' one-year graft patency (94.2% vs. 90.2%, P = 0.761) showed no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

In patients with comorbid CAD and diabetes, MICS CABG and CCABG had comparable revascularization performances. Moreover, MICS CABG can effectively reduce, if not prevent, poor clinical outcomes/complications, including incision healing, sternal infection and prolonged length of stay in diabetes patients.