Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis

Aim. Recently minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting has become an interesting alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting, especially in patients with a high-grade left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) stenosis unsuitable for balloon angioplasty. Although MIDCAB offers several advantages such as the avoidance of sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass, concerns have been raised about the technical accuracy of the anastomoses that can be performed on a beating heart. Therefore, clinical and angiographic outcomes after MIDCAB are the subject of current controversy. Methods. A literature search for all published outcome studies of MIDCAB grafting was performed for the period from January 1995 through October 2007. Seventeen articles were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The data presented in the studies was analyzed with regard to clinical and angiographic results. Results. Early and late (>30 days after MIDCAB) death rates were 1.3% (51/4 081 patients) and 3.2% (130/4 081 patients), respectively. The infarct rate was 0.8% (32/4 081 patients; non-fatal myocardial infarction). other minor or major complications (e.g. reoperation for management of bleeding, chest wound problems, arrhythmias, cerebrovascular accident, pericardial effusion, pulmonary complications) were reported in 781 cases. The conversion rate to sternotomy/cardiopulmonary bypass was 1.8% (74/4 081 patients). A re-intervention due to graft failure was necessary in 134/4 081 patients (3.3%). A total of 2556 grafts were studied angiographically immediately after surgery. One hundred and six grafts (4.2%) were occluded and 169 grafts (6.6%) had a significant stenosis (50-99%). At 6-month follow-up, 445 grafts were studied angiographically. Sixteen grafts (3.6%) were occluded and 32 grafts (7.2%) had a significant stenosis. Conclusion. Clinical outcomes and immediate graft patency after MIDCAB are acceptable. However, long-term follow-up results and further randomized prospective clinical trials comparing this new technique with standard revascularization procedures in large patient cohorts are needed.