Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting in 239 patients: A propensity score matching study
- VernacularTitle:微创冠状动脉旁路移植术患者239例临床疗效的倾向性评分匹配研究
- Author:
Feng PAN
1
;
Lin LIANG
1
;
Wei XIAO
1
;
Jiaji LIU
1
;
Xiaolong MA
1
;
Danqing GENG
1
;
Guangxin ZHAO
1
;
Liqun CHI
1
;
Qingyu KONG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100029, P. R. China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Minimal invasiveness;
coronary artery bypass grafting;
propensity score matching;
follow-up
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2023;30(07):976-981
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To investigate the perioperative clinical effects and follow-up results of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in thoracotomy. Methods The patients who received off-pump CABG in Beijing Anzhen Hospital from January 2017 to October 2021 were collected. Among them, the patients receiving MICS CABG performed by the same surgeon were divided into a minimally invasive group, and the patients receiving median thoracotomy were into a conventional group. By propensity score matching, preoperative data were balanced. Perioperative and postoperative follow-up data of the two groups were compared. Results A total of 890 patients were collected. There were 211 males and 28 females, aged 60.54±9.40 years in the minimally invasive group, and 487 males and 164 females, aged 62.31±8.64 years in the conventional group. After propensity score matching, there were 239 patients in each group. Compared with the conventional group, patients in the minimally invasive group had longer operation time, shorter drainage duration, less drainage volume on the first postoperative day, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and lower rate of positive inotropenic drugs use, while there was no statistical difference in the mean number of bypass grafts, ICU stay, ventilator-assisted time, blood transfusion rate or perioperative complications (P>0.05). During the median follow-up of 2.25 years, there was no statistical difference in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, including all-cause death, stroke or revascularization between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Reasonable clinical strategies can ensure perioperative and mid-term surgical outcomes of MICS CABG not inferior to conventional CABG. In addition, MICS CABG has the advantages in terms of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative drainage volume, and rate of positive inotropic drugs use.
