Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2026

Non-fluoroscopic Catheter Tracking for Fluoroscopy Reduction in Interventional Electrophysiology
Published on: May 26, 2015
Atrial fibrillation after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery
J E Tamis-Holland1, P Homel, M Durani
1Division of Cardiology, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, New York, New York 10025, USA. jtamis@SLRHC.org
Insights
Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB) showed a lower incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) compared to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). However, this difference is attributed to patient characteristics, not the surgical approach itself.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Thoracic Surgery
- Cardiac Surgery
Background:
- Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common complication following coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), leading to increased morbidity and delayed hospital discharge.
- Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB) is an alternative surgical approach, and its impact on AF incidence requires investigation due to potential differences in surgical methodology.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the adjusted risk of developing atrial fibrillation (AF) after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB) versus traditional coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG).
Main Methods:
- A review of medical records was conducted for randomly selected patients who underwent either CABG or MIDCAB.
- Baseline patient variables and postoperative outcomes were systematically recorded and analyzed.
Main Results:
- Patients undergoing MIDCAB were younger and had less severe coronary artery disease compared to CABG patients.
- Postoperative AF occurred less frequently in the MIDCAB group (23%) than in the CABG group (39%).
- Multivariate analysis revealed that the type of surgery (MIDCAB vs. CABG) was not an independent predictor of AF, with an estimated relative risk of 1.57 (95% CI: 0.82-2.52) for CABG patients.
Conclusions:
- While AF appears less common after MIDCAB, this observation is primarily explained by the distinct clinical profiles of patients selected for each procedure.
- The surgical approach (MIDCAB vs. CABG) itself does not independently predict the occurrence of postoperative AF when patient characteristics are accounted for.
Objectives:
The study compared the adjusted risk for developing atrial fibrillation (AF) after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG).
Background:
Atrial fibrillation results in increased morbidity and delays hospital discharge after CABG. Recently, MIDCAB has been explored as an alternative to CABG. Because of differences in surgical approach between the two procedures, the incidence of AF may differ.
Methods:
Randomly selected patients undergoing CABG and MIDCAB were examined. Baseline variables and postoperative course were recorded through review of medical record data.
Results:
The MIDCAB patients were younger than CABG patients (64+/-12 vs. 67+/-10, p<0.04) and had less extensive coronary artery disease (53% of MIDCAB vs. 3% of CABG had single-vessel disease, while 15% of MIDCAB vs. 69% of CABG had triple-vessel disease, p<0.001 for overall group comparisons). No other differences in clinical or treatment data were noted. Postoperative AF occurred less often after MIDCAB (23% vs. 39%, p = 0.02). Other significant factors associated with postoperative AF included age (p = 0.0024), prior AF (p = 0.0007), left main disease (p = 0.01), number of vessels bypassed (p = 0.009), absence of postoperative beta-blocker therapy (p = 0.0001), and a serious postoperative complication (p = 0.0018). Because of differences between CABG and MIDCAB patients, multivariate logistic analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of postoperative AF. The type of surgery (CABG vs. MIDCAB) was no longer a significant predictor of postoperative AF (estimated relative risk for AF in CABG vs. MIDCAB patients: 1.57, 95% confidence interval (0.82-2.52).
Conclusions:
Although AF appears to be less common after MIDCAB than after CABG, the lower incidence is due to different clinical characteristics of patients undergoing these procedures.
More Related Videos
07:39Use of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device/Left Atrium to Femoral Artery Bypass System for Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: August 16, 2021
08:42Cox-Maze IV Procedure Concomitant with Valvular Surgery In Situs Inversus Dextrocardia: A Single-Center Experience in China
Published on: February 11, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care