Short and medium-term efficacy of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus: A retrospective study in a single center
- VernacularTitle:冠心病合并糖尿病患者行微创冠状动脉旁路移植术近中期疗效的回顾性队列研究
- Author:
Guangxin ZHAO
1
;
Lin LIANG
1
;
Jiaji LIU
1
;
Xiaolong MA
1
;
Liqun CHI
1
;
Qingyu KONG
1
Author Information
1. Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery Center, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100029, P. R. China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting;
diabetes mellitus;
coronary heart disease;
retrospective study
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2025;32(10):1447-1454
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) and traditional CABG in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods From 2019 to 2021, the patients who received CABG by the same medical group in the Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery Center of Beijing Anzhen Hospital were retrospectively enrolled. According to the surgery methods, the patients were divided into two groups: a MICS CABG group and a conventional group. The perioperative and postoperative follow-up data of patients were collected. The main observation results included all cause death events, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular, revascularization, and adverse wound healing. Results According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 140 patients were enrolled, including 66 patients in the MICS CABG group [56 males and 10 females, aged (61.83±8.94) years], and 74 patients in the conventional group [55 males and 19 females, aged (58.61±8.26) years]. Compared with the conventional group, patients in the MICS CABG group had longer median surgical time (4.50 h vs. 4.00 h, P=0.005), less intraoperative bleeding (600.00 mL vs. 700.00 mL, P=0.020), and a lower rate of secondary debridement and suturing of surgical wounds (4.5% vs. 16.2%, P=0.023). The median follow-up time was 2.54 years. There was no statistically significant difference in the cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (7.6% vs. 5.4%), all-cause mortality (0.0% vs. 0.0%), myocardial infarction (3.0% vs. 2.7%), cerebrovascular events (4.5% vs. 2.7%), or revascularization (0.0% vs. 0.0%) between the two groups of patients during the postoperative follow-up (P>0.05). Conclusion MICS CABG can achieve the same revascularization effect as traditional CABG in patients with CHD and DM. MICS CABG can effectively reduce adverse clinical outcomes or complications such as adverse chest wound healing and slow postoperative recovery of body function in patients with DM.
