The clinical effects of minimally invasive versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting for coronary heart disease: A retrospective cohort study
- VernacularTitle:微创或常规不停跳冠状动脉旁路移植术治疗冠状动脉粥样硬化性心脏病临床疗效的回顾性队列研究
- Author:
Lin LIANG
1
;
Xiaolong MA
1
;
Qingyu KONG
1
;
Wei XIAO
1
;
Jiaji LIU
1
;
Yu HUANG
2
;
Feng PAN
1
;
Danqing GENG
1
;
Guangxin ZHAO
1
;
Junming ZHU
1
;
Liqun CHI
1
Author Information
1. Minimally Invasive Heart Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100029, P. R. China
2. Chongqing Suining Central Hospital, Chongqing, 629018, P. R. China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting;
conventional coronary artery bypass grafting;
outcomes;
retrospective cohort study
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2022;29(11):1430-1435
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the mid- and long-term efficacy of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS) versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods This study analyzed 679 patients with coronary heart disease treated in the Minimally Invasive Heart Center of Beijing Anzhen Hospital from 2015 to 2019, including 532 males and 147 females with an average age of 61.16 years. A total of 281 patients underwent MICS (a MICS group) and 398 patients underwent conventional CABG (a CABG group). The clinical data of the patients in the two groups were analyzed. Results The average operation time was longer (P<0.001), the total hospital stay was shorter (P<0.001), and the amount of drainage 24 h after the operation was less (P=0.029) in the MICS group. There was no statistical difference in the incidence of perioperative complications between the two groups. The median follow-up time was 2.68 years. The follow-up results showed that the total incidence of cumulative main adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in the CABG group was higher at 2 years (6.2% vs. 3.8%) and 4 years (9.3% vs. 7.6%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). There was no statistical difference in 2- or 4-year all-cause death between the two groups (3.5% vs. 2.8%, 5.6% vs. 2.8%, P>0.05). At the same time, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke or revascularization between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Compared with conventional CABG, MICS can achieve satisfactory mid- and long-term outcomes.
