Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass versus off-pump coronary surgery through sternotomy

Abstract

Introduction Although it is not a new technique, minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) is employed only by a few surgeons in the UK. We compared our experience with MIDCAB with that of single vessel off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) graft surgery through a standard median sternotomy. Methods Patients who underwent either MIDCAB or OPCAB between April 2008 and July 2011 were reviewed. Exclusion criteria included patients with an ejection fraction of <0.5 or previous cardiac surgery. Data were obtained retrospectively from our prospective database, medical records and through general practitioners. Results Overall, 74 patients were analysed in the MIDCAB group and 78 in the OPCAB group. Their demographics and EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) values were comparable (p>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the two groups in terms of mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, postoperative stroke, wound infection, atrial fibrillation or need for reintervention. The MIDCAB group had six conversions to a sternotomy. Eight patients in each group required blood transfusion, with the average transfusion being 1.8 units in the MIDCAB group and 3.2 units in the OPCAB group. The mean duration of ventilation and intensive care unit stay was 5.0 hours and 38.4 hours in the MIDCAB group and 5.4 and 47.8 hours in the OPCAB group. The mean hospital stay was significantly reduced in the MIDCAB population (6.1 vs 8.5 days, p<0.05). Conclusions MIDCAB can be performed safely in appropriately selected patients with outcomes comparable with OPCAB. The potential benefits include shorter hospital stay, reduced need for blood transfusion and faster recovery.