微创直接冠状动脉搭桥术与单胸腔内动脉移植术治疗多支冠状动脉疾病:单中心回顾性分析

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Mohammad Kakoush, Amit Gordon, Ariel Farkash, Nadav Teich, Orr Sela, Dmitri Pevni, Tomer Ziv-Baran, Jonathan Kfir, Yanai Ben-Gal
{"title":"微创直接冠状动脉搭桥术与单胸腔内动脉移植术治疗多支冠状动脉疾病:单中心回顾性分析","authors":"Mohammad Kakoush, Amit Gordon, Ariel Farkash, Nadav Teich, Orr Sela, Dmitri Pevni, Tomer Ziv-Baran, Jonathan Kfir, Yanai Ben-Gal","doi":"10.1186/s13019-025-03410-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare two surgical strategies for myocardial revascularization: one by a minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and the other by a conventional full sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed the early outcomes and overall survival of all the patients treated in our center by the above strategies during 2000-2011.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1915 patients, 1752 underwent conventional CABG utilizing a single internal thoracic artery (ITA) graft and 163 underwent a MIDCAB procedure. In the former compared to the latter, the patients were older and the median EuroSCORE was higher. The prevalences were higher of diabetes mellitus, recent myocardial infarction, emergency procedures, the.usage of an intra-aortic balloon pump, redo operations, and peripheral vascular disease; and the prevalences lower of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic renal failure. The median follow-up was 20 years. Early mortality (30 day) was greater in the conventional CABG group (3.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.042); and 10-, 15- and 20-year survival rates were lower: 55.1% vs. 76.7%, 37.1% vs. 63.7%, and 23.1% vs. 53.4%, respectively, p < 0.001. In an analysis that compared two matched groups of 134 patients each, early outcomes were similar, but late survival was lower following conventional CABG compared to MIDCAB after 10, 15 and 20 years: 64.7% vs. 74.6%, 44.7% vs. 64.1%, and 28.4% vs. 53.6% respectively, p = 0.004. In multivariable and univariate analysis, MIDCAB strategy compared to conventional single ITA CABG was associated with better late survival; the hazard ratio was 0.429 (95%CI 0.321-0.574, p < 0.001) for the whole cohort and 0.559 (95%CI: 0.376-0.831, p = 0.004), for the matched cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to conventional CABG utilizing a single ITA, the MIDCAB procedure demonstrated early safety and long-term effectiveness for surgical myocardial revascularization of the left anterior descending artery.</p>","PeriodicalId":15201,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery","volume":"20 1","pages":"188"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11987435/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass versus single internal thoracic artery grafting procedures for multivessel coronary artery disease: a single-center retrospective analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad Kakoush, Amit Gordon, Ariel Farkash, Nadav Teich, Orr Sela, Dmitri Pevni, Tomer Ziv-Baran, Jonathan Kfir, Yanai Ben-Gal\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13019-025-03410-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare two surgical strategies for myocardial revascularization: one by a minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and the other by a conventional full sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed the early outcomes and overall survival of all the patients treated in our center by the above strategies during 2000-2011.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1915 patients, 1752 underwent conventional CABG utilizing a single internal thoracic artery (ITA) graft and 163 underwent a MIDCAB procedure. In the former compared to the latter, the patients were older and the median EuroSCORE was higher. The prevalences were higher of diabetes mellitus, recent myocardial infarction, emergency procedures, the.usage of an intra-aortic balloon pump, redo operations, and peripheral vascular disease; and the prevalences lower of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic renal failure. The median follow-up was 20 years. Early mortality (30 day) was greater in the conventional CABG group (3.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.042); and 10-, 15- and 20-year survival rates were lower: 55.1% vs. 76.7%, 37.1% vs. 63.7%, and 23.1% vs. 53.4%, respectively, p < 0.001. In an analysis that compared two matched groups of 134 patients each, early outcomes were similar, but late survival was lower following conventional CABG compared to MIDCAB after 10, 15 and 20 years: 64.7% vs. 74.6%, 44.7% vs. 64.1%, and 28.4% vs. 53.6% respectively, p = 0.004. In multivariable and univariate analysis, MIDCAB strategy compared to conventional single ITA CABG was associated with better late survival; the hazard ratio was 0.429 (95%CI 0.321-0.574, p < 0.001) for the whole cohort and 0.559 (95%CI: 0.376-0.831, p = 0.004), for the matched cohort.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to conventional CABG utilizing a single ITA, the MIDCAB procedure demonstrated early safety and long-term effectiveness for surgical myocardial revascularization of the left anterior descending artery.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"188\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11987435/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-025-03410-0\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-025-03410-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较微创直接冠状动脉旁路移植术(MIDCAB)和常规全胸骨切开冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)两种心肌血运重建的手术策略。方法:回顾2000-2011年在我中心采用上述策略治疗的所有患者的早期结局和总生存率。结果:1915例患者中,1752例采用单胸内动脉(ITA)移植术,163例采用MIDCAB手术。与后者相比,前者患者年龄更大,中位EuroSCORE更高。糖尿病、近期心肌梗死、急诊手术、心绞痛的患病率较高。使用主动脉内球囊泵,重做手术,周围血管疾病;慢性阻塞性肺疾病和慢性肾功能衰竭的患病率较低。中位随访时间为20年。常规CABG组的早期死亡率(30天)更高(3.6%比0.6%,p = 0.042);10年、15年和20年生存率较低:分别为55.1%对76.7%、37.1%对63.7%、23.1%对53.4%。p结论:与使用单一ITA的传统CABG相比,MIDCAB手术在左前降支手术心肌血运重建术中表现出早期安全性和长期有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass versus single internal thoracic artery grafting procedures for multivessel coronary artery disease: a single-center retrospective analysis.

Objective: To compare two surgical strategies for myocardial revascularization: one by a minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and the other by a conventional full sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Methods: We reviewed the early outcomes and overall survival of all the patients treated in our center by the above strategies during 2000-2011.

Results: Of 1915 patients, 1752 underwent conventional CABG utilizing a single internal thoracic artery (ITA) graft and 163 underwent a MIDCAB procedure. In the former compared to the latter, the patients were older and the median EuroSCORE was higher. The prevalences were higher of diabetes mellitus, recent myocardial infarction, emergency procedures, the.usage of an intra-aortic balloon pump, redo operations, and peripheral vascular disease; and the prevalences lower of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic renal failure. The median follow-up was 20 years. Early mortality (30 day) was greater in the conventional CABG group (3.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.042); and 10-, 15- and 20-year survival rates were lower: 55.1% vs. 76.7%, 37.1% vs. 63.7%, and 23.1% vs. 53.4%, respectively, p < 0.001. In an analysis that compared two matched groups of 134 patients each, early outcomes were similar, but late survival was lower following conventional CABG compared to MIDCAB after 10, 15 and 20 years: 64.7% vs. 74.6%, 44.7% vs. 64.1%, and 28.4% vs. 53.6% respectively, p = 0.004. In multivariable and univariate analysis, MIDCAB strategy compared to conventional single ITA CABG was associated with better late survival; the hazard ratio was 0.429 (95%CI 0.321-0.574, p < 0.001) for the whole cohort and 0.559 (95%CI: 0.376-0.831, p = 0.004), for the matched cohort.

Conclusions: Compared to conventional CABG utilizing a single ITA, the MIDCAB procedure demonstrated early safety and long-term effectiveness for surgical myocardial revascularization of the left anterior descending artery.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
286
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of research in the field of Cardiology, and Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery. The journal publishes original scientific research documenting clinical and experimental advances in cardiac, vascular and thoracic surgery, and related fields. Topics of interest include surgical techniques, survival rates, surgical complications and their outcomes; along with basic sciences, pediatric conditions, transplantations and clinical trials. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery is of interest to cardiothoracic and vascular surgeons, cardiothoracic anaesthesiologists, cardiologists, chest physicians, and allied health professionals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信