Minimally Invasive vs Conventional Coronary Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Coronary Disease

Despite sternum sparing and without cardiopulmonary bypass, the actual value of minimally invasive coronary surgery (MICS) is still debatable. This study aimed to compare the completeness of revascularization and intermediate-term outcomes of MICS with conventional sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Two groups of 244 patients each receiving MICS-CABG and sternotomy-CABG between November 2015 and March 2019 were matched by propensity score matching. The completeness of revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeated target vessel revascularization) were compared between the groups.

In the MICS-CABG group, the percentages of bypassed vessels 2, 3, and ≥4 were 53.7%, 36.1%, and 10.2%, respectively. Completeness of revascularization (95.5% vs 96.3%; P = .65) was comparable between MICS-CABG and sternotomy-CABG groups. Postprocedural angiography revealed an overall patency of 96.2% (578/601) for the MICS-CABG group. At 5 years, rates of MACCE (19.9% vs 22.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49-1.32; P = .39), death (10.6% vs 12.9%; HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.46-1.65; P = .67), myocardial infarction (5.6% vs 4.2%; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.27-2.52; P = .73), stroke (6.7% vs 6.6%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.43-2.86; P = .83), and repeated target vessel revascularization (1.9% vs 1.8%; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.17-3.15; P = .84) were similar between MICS-CABG and sternotomy-CABG.

MICS-CABG, which appeared to yield noninferior completeness of revascularization and intermediate-term MACCE compared with sternotomy-CABG, could be an alternative for patients with multivessel coronary diseases.