Redo minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass

2005 ◽  
Vol 53 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Jacobs ◽  
V Falk ◽  
D Holzhey ◽  
F Mohr
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Artery Bypass

Robot-Assisted Off-Pump Minimally Invasive Reoperative Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Case Report

2004 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. E533-E534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy P. Martens ◽  
Marco M. Hefti ◽  
Robert Kalimi ◽  
Craig R. Smith ◽  
Michael Argenziano
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Bypass Grafting ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Off Pump

The Comparison between Minimally Invasive Coronary Bypass Grafting Surgery and Conventional Bypass Grafting Surgery in Proximal LAD Lesion

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehmet Ezelsoy ◽  
Baris Caynak ◽  
Muhammed Bayram ◽  
Kerem Oral ◽  
Zehra Bayramoglu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Bypass Surgery ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Coronary Bypass ◽  
Bypass Grafting ◽  
Robotic Group ◽  
Bypass Group

<strong>Background</strong>: Minimally invasive bypass grafting surgery has entered the clincal routine in several centers around the world, with an increasing popularity in the last decade. In our study, we aimed to make a comparison between minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and conventional bypass grafting surgery in isolated proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD) lesions. <br /><strong>Methods</strong>: Between January 2004 and December 2011, patients with proximal LAD lesions, who were treated with robotically assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery and conventional bypass surgery, were included in the study. In Group 1, coronary bypass with cardiopulmonary bypass and complete sternotomy were applied to 35 patients and in Group 2, robotically assisted minimally invasive bypass surgery was applied to 35 patients. The demographic, preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data were collected retrospectively.<br /><strong>Results</strong>: The mean follow-up time of the conventional bypass group was 5.7 ± 1.7 years, whereas this ratio was 7.3 ±1.3 in the robotic group. There was no postoperative transient ischemic attack (TIA), wound infection, mortality, or need for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in any of the patients. In the conventional bypass group, blood transfusion and ventilation time were significantly higher (P &lt; .05) than in the robotic group. The intensive care unit (ICU) stay and hospital stay were remarkably shorter in the robotic group <br />(P &lt; .01). The postoperative pneumonia rate was significantly higher (20%) in the conventional bypass group <br />(P &lt; .01). Postoperative day 1 pain score was higher in the robotic group (P &lt; .05), however, postoperative day 3 pain score in the conventional bypass group was higher (P &lt; .05). Graft patency rate was 88.6% in the conventional bypass group whereas this ratio was 91.4% in the robotic bypass group, which was not clinically significant (P &gt; .05).<br /><strong>Conclusion</strong>: In isolated proximal LAD stenosis, robotic assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery requires less blood products, is associated with shorter ICU and hospital stay, and lesser pain in the early postoperative period in contrast to conventional surgery. The result of our studies, which showed similarities to the past studies, lead us to recognize the importance of minimally invasive interventions and the need to perform them more frequently in the future.

Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

1996 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-116
Author(s):  
Eugene KW Sim ◽  
Rodney Landreneau ◽  
Peter MY Goh ◽  
Christopher Chew ◽  
Ng Wai Lin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery ◽  
Bypass Surgery ◽  
Artery Bypass

Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass in High-Risk Patients with Multivessel Disease

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grischa Hoffmann ◽  
Christine Friedrich ◽  
Katharina Huenges ◽  
Rainer Petzina ◽  
Astrid-Mareike Vogt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Multivessel Disease ◽  
Complete Revascularization ◽  
High Risk Patients ◽  
Risk Patients

Abstract Background High-risk patients with multivessel disease (MVD) including a complex stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary may not be ideal candidates for guideline compliant therapy by coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) regarding invasiveness and perioperative complications. However, they may benefit from minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting and hybrid revascularization (HCR). Methods A logistic European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation score (logES) >10% defined high risk. In high-risk patients with MVD undergoing MIDCAB or HCR, the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) after 30 days and during midterm follow-up was evaluated. Results Out of 1,250 patients undergoing MIDCAB at our institution between 1998 and 2015, 78 patients (logES: 18.5%; age, 76.7 ± 8.6 years) met the inclusion criteria. During the first 30 days, mortality and rate of MACCE were 9.0%; early mortality was two-fold overestimated by logES. Complete revascularization as scheduled was finally achieved in 64 patients (82.1%). Median follow-up time reached 3.4 (1.2–6.5) years with a median survival time of 4.7 years. Survival after 1, 3, and 5 years was 77, 62, and 48%. Conclusion In high-risk patients with MVD, MIDCAB is associated with acceptable early outcome which is better than predicted by logES. Taking the high-risk profile into consideration, midterm follow-up showed satisfying results, although scheduled HCR was not realized in a relevant proportion. In selected cases of MVD, MIDCAB presents an acceptable alternative for high-risk patients.

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

2013 ◽  
Vol 95 (7) ◽  
pp. 481-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Birla ◽  
P Patel ◽  
G Aresu ◽  
G Asimakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Off Pump ◽  
Opcab Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document