Reasons for Conversion and Adverse Intraoperative Events in Robotically Enhanced Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Revascularization

Abstract

Objective

The transition from sternotomy access to minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with steep learning curves. This study reports the reasons for sternotomy conversions from robotically enhanced minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (RE-MIDCAB) and describes potential risk reduction strategies.

Methods

The perioperative data of 759 RE-MIDCAB patients (mean age 65.9 ± 10 years, 25.5% female, 30.2% multivessel disease) operated between July 1, 2002 and November 30, 2018 were reviewed for the reasons of conversion and adverse intraoperative events. Hybrid revascularization was planned in 204 (26.9%) patients.

Results

Sternotomy conversion occurred in 30 (4.0%) patients. Lung adhesions and unsuccessful single-lung ventilation prohibited safe RE-MIDCAB internal thoracic artery (ITA) harvesting in 11 (36.7%) and 1 (3.3%) patients, respectively. ITA dysfunction (n = 11, 36.7%) and inadequate target vessel visualization (n = 3, 10.0%) were among the anatomical reasons for conversions. Adverse intraoperative events included ventricle perforation (n = 1, 3.3%) and sustained ventricular arrhythmia (n = 1, 3.3%). The in-hospital mortality and mean length of hospitalization for sternotomy conversion were 3.3% (n = 1 of 30) and 13.4 ± 14.5 days, respectively. Perioperative morbidities included pneumonia (n = 4, 13.3%). Premorbid renal dysfunction predicted sternotomy conversion at the 5% level of significance.

Conclusions

RE-MIDCAB provides an attractive surgical platform for primary- or hybrid coronary artery procedures. The progressive increase in patient risk profiles, strict quality control, and focus on clinical governance require awareness of reasons that potentially contribute RE-MIDCAB to sternotomy conversion to ensure safe and sustainable programs.

Keywords

minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery quality control conversion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Mangiacapra

Barbato

. From SYNTAX to FAME, a paradigm shift in revascularization strategies: the key role of fractional flow reserve in guiding myocardial revascularization. J Cardiovasc Med 2011; 12: 538–542.doi:10.2459/JCM.0b013e328347edc3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21670702

Bavishi

Baber

Panwar

et al. Efficacy and safety of everolimus and zotarolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation drug-eluting stents in patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Int J Cardiol 2017; 230: 310–318.doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.12.116

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28062139

Weintraub

WS.

Grau-Sepulveda

MV.

Weiss

et al. Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 1467–1476.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1110717

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22452338

Dunlay

SM.

Rihal

CS.

Sundt

et al. Current trends in coronary revascularization. Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med 2009; 11: 61–70.doi:10.1007/s11936-009-0007-7

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19141262

Zimmermann

FM.

De Bruyne

Pijls

NHJ

et al. Rationale and design of the fractional flow reserve versus angiography for multivessel evaluation (FAME) 3 trial: a comparison of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Am Heart J 2015; 170: 619–626.doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2015.06.024

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26386784

Culler

SD.

Kugelmass

AD.

Brown

et al. Trends in coronary revascularization procedures among Medicare beneficiaries between 2008 and 2012. Circulation 2015; 131: 362–370.doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.012485

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25533970

Neumann

F-J.

Sousa-Uva

Ahlsson

et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019; 40: 87–165.doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30165437

Hillis

LD.

Smith

PK.

Anderson

et al. ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 2012: 4–34.

Mohr

FW.

Morice

M-C.

Kappetein

et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet 2013; 381: 629–638.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60141-5

10.

Park

S-J.

Ahn

J-M.

Kim

Y-H

et al. Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 1204–1212.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1415447

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25774645

11.

Serruys

PW.

Morice

M-C.

Kappetein

et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 961–972.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0804626

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19228612

12.

Farkouh

ME.

Domanski

Sleeper

et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2375–2384.doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1211585

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23121323

13.

Mulukutla

SR.

Gleason

TG.

Sharbaugh

et al. Coronary bypass versus percutaneous revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease. Ann Thorac Surg 2019; 108: 474–480.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.02.064

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31056197

14.

Spadaccio

Benedetto

. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of multivessel coronary disease: quo vadis? -a review of the evidences on coronary artery disease. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 7: 506–515.doi:10.21037/acs.2018.05.17

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30094215

15.

Sipahi

Akay

MH.

Dagdelen

et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting vs percutaneous coronary intervention and long-term mortality and morbidity in multivessel disease: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of the arterial grafting and stenting era. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174: 223–230.doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12844

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24296767

16.

Habib

RH.

Dimitrova

KR.

Badour

et al. CABG versus PCI: greater benefit in long-term outcomes with multiple arterial bypass grafting. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 66: 1417–1427.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.07.060

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26403338

17.

Dangas

GD.

Farkouh

ME.

Sleeper

et al. Long-term outcome of PCI versus CABG in insulin and non-insulin-treated diabetic patients: results from the FREEDOM trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64: 1189–1197.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.06.1182

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25236509

18.

Whellan

DJ.

McCarey

MM.

Taylor

et al. Trends in robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafts: a study of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database, 2006 to 2012. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 102: 140–146.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.12.059

27016838

19.

Buehler

AM.

Ferri

Flato

UAP

et al. Robotically assisted coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot 2015; 11: 150–158.doi:10.1002/rcs.1611

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25219464

20.

Bonatti

Ramahi

Hasan

et al. Long-term results after robotically assisted coronary bypass surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 5: 556–562.doi:10.21037/acs.2016.11.04

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27942487

21.

Boodhwani

Ruel

Mesana

et al. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass for the treatment of isolated disease of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Can J Surg 2005; 48: 307–310.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16149366

22.

Bonatti

Vento

Bonaros

et al. Robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB)-placement of bilateral internal mammary arteries to the left ventricle. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 5: 589–592.doi:10.21037/acs.2016.11.05

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27942494

23.

Mohr

FW.

Davierwala

. Revascularization strategy for proximal LAD disease: left internal mammary to LAD artery still rules the roost. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64: 2727–2729.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.10.019

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25541123

24.

Bao

et al. MIDCAB versus off-pump CABG: comparative study. Hellenic J Cardiol 2019. Epub ahead of print 25 Jan 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.hjc.2018.12.004.doi:10.1016/j.hjc.2018.12.004

30685419

25.

Birla

Patel

Aresu

et al. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass versus off-pump coronary surgery through sternotomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2013; 95: 481–485.doi:10.1308/003588413X13629960047119

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24112493

26.

Ruel

Shariff

MA.

Lapierre

et al. Results of the minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting angiographic patency study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147: 203–209.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.09.016

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24183338

27.

Halkos

ME.

Liberman

HA.

Devireddy

et al. Early clinical and angiographic outcomes after robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147: 179–185.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.09.010

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24172691

28.

Raffa

GM.

Settepani

. Conversion to sternotomy during sternal-sparing coronary artery surgery. J Card Surg 2013; 28: 386–387.doi:10.1111/jocs.12110

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23627397

29.

Christidis

NK.

Fox

SA.

Swinamer

et al. Reason and timing for conversion to sternotomy in robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting and patient outcomes. Innovations 2018; 13: 423–427.doi:10.1097/IMI.0000000000000566

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30540591

30.

Trejos

AL.

Ross

Scalesse

et al. Preoperative evaluation of patient anatomy to increase success of robotics-assisted bypass surgery. Innovations 2010; 5: 335–340.doi:10.1097/imi.0b013e3181f8b6d1

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22437517

31.

Stevens

JH.

Burdon

TA.

Peters

et al. Port-access coronary artery bypass grafting: a proposed surgical method. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996; 111: 567–573.doi:10.1016/S0022-5223(96)70308-2

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8601971

32.

Sutter

FP.

Wertan

. Robotic-assisted bilateral internal thoracic artery harvest. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 7: 704–706.doi:10.21037/acs.2018.06.12

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30505758

33.

Puskas

. Tips and techniques for multivessel OPCAB. Oper Tech Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 11: 78–89.doi:10.1053/j.optechstcvs.2006.04.001

34.

Avgerinos

DV.

Charitakis

. Hybrid coronary revascularization: present and future. Hellenic J Cardiol 2015; 56: 193–196.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26021239

35.

Nenna

Spadaccio

Lusini

et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization: an attractive alternative between actual results and future trends. Surg Technol Int 2016; 28: 204–210.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27042796

36.

Ashok

Francis

. A practical approach to adult one-lung ventilation. BJA Education 2018; 18: 69–74.doi:10.1016/j.bjae.2017.11.007

37.

G-W.

Taggart

. Spasm in arterial grafts in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 101: 1222–1229.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.09.071

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26588865

38.

Shim

JK.

Choi

YS.

Yoo

et al. Carbon dioxide embolism induced right coronary artery ischaemia during off-pump obtuse marginalis artery grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009; 36: 598–599.doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.04.062

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19586779

39.

Mishra

PK.

Yiu

. Air embolism caused by blower mister during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: is it preventable? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010; 37: 984.doi:10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.10.008

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19932031

40.

Thiele

Neumann-Schniedewind

Jacobs

et al. Randomized comparison of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery versus sirolimus-eluting stenting in isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 53: 2324–2331.doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.03.032

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19539141

41.

Blazek

Rossbach

Borger

et al. Comparison of sirolimus-eluting stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery: 7-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2015; 8(1 Pt A): 30–38.doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2014.08.006

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25499302

42.

Hage

Giambruno

Jones

et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: comparative effectiveness analysis with long-term follow-up. J Am Heart Assoc 2019; 8: e014204.doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.014204

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31826727

43.

Giambruno

Jones

Khaliel

et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2018; 105: 1330–1335.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.11.019

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29571730

44.

Reynolds

AC.

King

. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 2018; 97: e11941.doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000011941

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30113498

45.

Ganyukov

Kochergin

Shilov

et al. Randomized clinical trial of surgical vs. percutaneous vs. hybrid revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease: residual myocardial ischemia and clinical outcomes at one year-Hybrid coronary REvascularization Versus Stenting or Surgery (HREVS). J Interv Cardiol 2020; 2020: 5458064.doi:10.1155/2020/5458064

31969796

46.

Babliak

Demianenko

Melnyk

et al. Multivessel arterial revascularization via left anterior thoracotomy. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020. Epub ahead of print 27 Feb 2020. DOI: 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2020.02.032.doi:10.1053/j.semtcvs.2020.02.032

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32114114

47.

Rodriguez

ML.

Lapierre

HR.

Sohmer

et al. Mid-term follow-up of minimally invasive multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting: is the early learning phase detrimental? Innovations 2017; 12: 116–120.doi:10.1097/IMI.0000000000000353

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28328569