TY - JOUR
T1 - Initial experience with minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation in coronary artery bypass graft reoperations
AU - Heinisch, Paul Philipp
AU - Mihalj, Maks
AU - Haliguer, Elif
AU - Gahl, Brigitta
AU - Winkler, Bernhard
AU - Venetz, Philipp
AU - Jenni, Hansjoerg
AU - Schober, Patrick
AU - Erdoes, Gabor
AU - Luedi, Markus M.
AU - Schefold, Joerg C.
AU - Kadner, Alexander
AU - Huber, Christoph
AU - Carrel, Thierry P.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 EMH Swiss Medical Publishers Ltd.. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/1/31
Y1 - 2022/1/31
N2 - AIMS OF THE STUDY: Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) is an established alternative to conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) in coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), but data on its use in cardiac reoperations are limited. We aimed to analyse perioperative morbidity and mortality in adult patients undergoing reoperations for isolated CABG using either CECC or MiECC circuits at our centre. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a single centre retrospective observational study of all adult patients undergoing cardiac reoperations for isolated CABG between 2004 and 2016, we identified 310 patients, and excluded those who received concomitant cardiac procedures (n = 205). Of the remaining 105 patients, 47 received isolated redo-CABG using MiECC, and 58 received CECC. Propensity score modelling was performed, and inversed probability treatment analysis was used between the treatment groups. Primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events or need for conversion to CECC. Groups were comparable, apart from a higher incidence of NYHA class III or higher in CECC group (33.5% vs 8.6%, p= 0.004). Shorter times for operation, cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp were observed in the MiECC group. The incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation was significantly lower with MiECC (22.1%, p = 0.012). No significant difference was observed in all-cause 30-day mortality between the MiECC and CECC groups (6.8% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in overall mortality between CECC and MiECC in patients undergoing reoperation for isolated CABG. Furthermore, we found no indication of differences in most outcomes between extracorporeal circuit types. In the case of redo-CABG, MiECC could provide an alternative strategy.
AB - AIMS OF THE STUDY: Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) is an established alternative to conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) in coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), but data on its use in cardiac reoperations are limited. We aimed to analyse perioperative morbidity and mortality in adult patients undergoing reoperations for isolated CABG using either CECC or MiECC circuits at our centre. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a single centre retrospective observational study of all adult patients undergoing cardiac reoperations for isolated CABG between 2004 and 2016, we identified 310 patients, and excluded those who received concomitant cardiac procedures (n = 205). Of the remaining 105 patients, 47 received isolated redo-CABG using MiECC, and 58 received CECC. Propensity score modelling was performed, and inversed probability treatment analysis was used between the treatment groups. Primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events or need for conversion to CECC. Groups were comparable, apart from a higher incidence of NYHA class III or higher in CECC group (33.5% vs 8.6%, p= 0.004). Shorter times for operation, cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp were observed in the MiECC group. The incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation was significantly lower with MiECC (22.1%, p = 0.012). No significant difference was observed in all-cause 30-day mortality between the MiECC and CECC groups (6.8% vs. 8.3%, p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in overall mortality between CECC and MiECC in patients undergoing reoperation for isolated CABG. Furthermore, we found no indication of differences in most outcomes between extracorporeal circuit types. In the case of redo-CABG, MiECC could provide an alternative strategy.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85125153913&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2022.w30101
DO - https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2022.w30101
M3 - Article
C2 - 35195525
SN - 1424-7860
VL - 152
SP - w30101
JO - Swiss medical weekly
JF - Swiss medical weekly
IS - 5-6
M1 - w30101
ER -