Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MICS CABG: a single-center experience of the first 100 cases

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correspondence to this article was published on 18 September 2023

Abstract

Purpose

To study the learning curve and outcomes of the first 100 cases of minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed at our center.

Methods

From January 2017 to November 2019, a total of 100 patients underwent CABG via left anterior thoracotomy approach. We have studied the operative times within the MICS CABG patients to analyze our learning curve. We also studied the postoperative outcomes and compared these with those of patients who underwent sternotomy during the same period.

Results

The mean age was 59.33 ± 9.95 (range 37–82) years. The numbers of males and females were 72 and 28 respectively. The preoperative average ejection fraction (EF) was 51.08 ± 9.75%. All these patients underwent CABG via left thoracotomy approach, after satisfying the exclusion criteria. All patients received left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to left anterior descending (LAD) as a standard graft, with the radial artery and saphenous vein being the next alternative conduits. The average length of the incision was 6.06 ± 0.45 cm. Only 2 cases were done on pump. The average number of grafts per patient was 2.33 ± 0.92. The mean operative time was 132.40 ± 11.56 min. The mean duration of ventilation was 4.79 ± 1.90 h and average intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 2.62 ± 0.84 days. There was one conversion and no mortalities in our study. We had analyzed our operative times and noticed a significant reduction after the first 20 cases, which was our learning curve.

Conclusion

MICS CABG can be performed for multivessel disease with the same comfort as for a single or a double vessel disease, once the learning curve has been achieved. Only significant difference from the sternotomy approach was noted in the longer operative times for MICS CABG during the learning curve, and not thereafter. Significant benefits of MICS over sternotomy were noticed in the immediate postoperative parameters like duration of ventilation, mean drainage, postoperative pain, ICU stay, and hospital stay, with no difference in postoperative adverse events.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dieberg G, Smart NA, King N. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2016;223:554–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Langer NB, Argenziano M. Minimally invasive cardiovascular surgery: incisions and approaches. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2016;12:4–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Rodriguez M, Ruel M. Minimally invasive multivessel coronary surgery and hybrid coronary revascularization : can we routinely achieve less invasive coronary surgery ? Methodist DeBakey Cardiovasc J. 2016;12:14–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Malik V, Jha AK, Kapoor PM. Anesthetic challenges in minimally invasive cardiac surgery : are we moving in a right direction ? Ann Card Anaesth. 2016;19:489–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Une D, Lapierre H, Sohmer B, Rai V, Ruel M. Can minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting be initiated and practiced safely? A Learning Curve Analysis. Innovations. 2013;8:403–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kieser TM, Taggart DP. The use of intraoperative graft assessment in guiding graft revision. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;7:652–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Lapierre H, Chan V, Sohmer B, Mesana TG, Ruel M. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting via a small thoracotomy versus off-pump : a case-matched study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40:804–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Andrawes PA, Shariff MA, Nabagiez JP, et al. Evolution of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting learning curve. Innovations. 2018;13:81–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Farid S, Ali JM, Stohlner V, et al. Long-term outcome of patients undergoing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery, a single-center experience. Innovations. 2018;13:23–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zeff RH, Kongtahworn C, Iannone LA, et al. Internal mammary artery versus saphenous vein graft to the left anterior descending coronary artery : prospective randomized study with 10-year follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg. 1988;45:533–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nambala S. Minimally invasive total arterial off-pump coronary revascularization: a reproducible technique. Turk J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;27:455–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lemma M, Atanasiou T, Contino M. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery-coronary artery bypass graft. Multimedia manual of cardiothoracic surgery: MMCTS / European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1093/mmcts/mmt007 published online 29 June 2013.

  13. Barsoum EA, Azab B, Shah N, et al. Long-term mortality in minimally invasive compared with sternotomy coronary artery bypass surgery in the geriatric population (75 years and older patients). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47:862–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Walther T, Falk V, Metz S, et al. Pain and quality of life after minimally invasive versus conventional cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67:1643–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, et al. 2011 ACCF / AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery : a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation / American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2011;124:e652–735.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Puskas JD, Halkos ME, DeRose JJ, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease: a multicenter observational study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:356–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Nil

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, NHMMI Narayana Superspeciality Hospital, Raipur, Chhattishgarh, 492001, India

    Nitin Kumar Rajput & Tej Kumar Varma Kalangi

  2. Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, NHMMI Narayana Superspeciality Hospital, Raipur, Chhattishgarh, 492001, India

    Arun Andappan & Alok Kumar Swain

Authors
  1. Nitin Kumar Rajput
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tej Kumar Varma Kalangi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arun Andappan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alok Kumar Swain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nitin Kumar Rajput.

Ethics declarations

Ethical committee approval

This study was approved by the institutional ethical committee.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Individual consents were waived off by the ethics committee.

Human and animal rights statement

All stipulations under the Helsinki declaration 1964 were complied with. No animal studies were carried out.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rajput, N.K., Kalangi, T.K.V., Andappan, A. et al. MICS CABG: a single-center experience of the first 100 cases. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 37, 16–26 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-020-01048-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-020-01048-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation