Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 13, 2025
Author Spotlight: Enhancing Coronary Artery Revascularization
Published on: September 15, 2023
Cost Analysis of Robot-Assisted Versus On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Single-Center Surgical
Monica Gianoli1, Anne R de Jong1, Pim van der Harst2
1Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Heart and Lungs, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Objective:
Throughout Europe, the interest in implementing robot-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB) has been growing. However, concerns about additional costs have emerged concurrently. In this analysis, we aim to provide a comparison of the cumulative perioperative costs of RA-MIDCAB, on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and off-pump CABG (OPCAB).
Methods:
We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis comparing patients undergoing RA-MIDCAB with those undergoing CABG or OPCAB at our institution from January 2016 to December 2021. After matching, we analyzed the combined intraoperative surgical costs and 30-day postoperative costs. We first compared RA-MIDCAB costs to CABG and then to OPCAB separately. Violin plots illustrated the cost distribution among individual patients. Total cost uncertainty was estimated using 1,000 bootstrapping iterations.
Results:
Seventy-nine RA-MIDCAB patients were matched to 158 CABG patients, and 80 RA-MIDCAB patients were matched to 149 OPCAB patients. Considering both surgical and clinical outcomes, RA-MIDCAB yielded an average cost of €17,121 per patient (€16,781 to €33,294), CABG was €16,571 per patient (€16,664 to €41,860), and OPCAB was €15,463 per patient (€10,895 to €57,867). After bootstrap iterations, RA-MIDCAB was found to be €472 (2.8%) and €1,599 (10.3%) more expensive per patient than CABG and OPCAB, respectively.
Conclusions:
In The Netherlands, the adoption of RA-MIDCAB did not show a significant economic impact on hospital resources. The additional robotic costs for the surgery were almost entirely offset by the cost savings during the postoperative hospital stay. However, these comparisons may differ when considering hybrid coronary revascularization with its additional percutaneous coronary intervention costs.
