Minimally invasive versus conventional reoperative coronary artery bypass.

BACKGROUND

Conventional reoperative (redo) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with significant morbidity. This retrospective study compared perioperative outcomes of conventional single-vessel redo CABG versus redo CABG done by a minimally invasive technique.

METHODS

Group A consisted of 23 consecutive patients from September 1995 to July 1996 who underwent single vessel redo CABG of the left anterior descending artery with the left internal mammary artery using a limited anterior thoracotomy without cardiopulmonary bypass; group B consisted of 12 consecutive patients from November 1984 to July 1994 who underwent the same procedure using a median sternotomy with cardiopulmonary bypass. The two groups were similar with regard to age, sex, preoperative ejection fraction, and risk stratification.

RESULTS

Mortality, cerebrovascular accidents, myocardial infarctions, and reoperations for bleeding were not significantly different between the groups. However, the patients in group A had significant reductions in atrial fibrillation, time to extubation, transfusions required, and length of cardiac recovery and hospital stay. With a mean of 12 +/- 6 months of follow-up, 87% of the patients in group A (20 of 23) are alive and asymptomatic. Actuarial survival rates for the patients in group B at 1, 2, and 10 years are 83%, 83%, and 72%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive single-vessel redo CABG can be performed safely and may reduce the morbidity associated with conventional single-vessel redo CABG.