Robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting: how I teach it.

The first robotic cardiac operation was performed more than two decades ago. This paper describes the distinct steps and components necessary for teaching robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (R-MIDCAB). It also provides a general overview of the surgical robotic setup and ways to troubleshoot potential complications. The focus of robotic training is not only on the surgeon but includes an entire dedicated cardiac team and administrative institutional support. This team approach ensures that R-MIDCAB can be performed safely and reproducibly. Meticulous planning, incremental learning, and teamwork are the main factors leading to program success and optimal patient outcomes. Robotic-assisted internal mammary artery (IMA) harvesting and coronary revascularization via a small, anterior mini-thoracotomy has provided an alternative to sternotomy in selected patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Benefits include less postoperative atrial fibrillation, fewer blood transfusion, less time in the operating room (OR), less ventilatory support, fewer strokes, decreased intensive care unit stay and shortened postoperative length of stay all of which manifests as a decrease in institutional resource utilization. Recent data show that R-MIDCAB and hybrid coronary revascularization provides good long-term outcomes. In addition to patient satisfaction, there is an additional overall cost benefit to R-MIDCAB over traditional sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), secondary to decreased hospital length of stay. Robotically harvesting the IMA, operating on a beating heart, and performing anastomoses through a small incision all require advanced training and incremental learning. Increased experience generally leads to shortened surgical times and fewer complications.

Risk Score for Long-Term Survival and Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Events After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery.

To develop risk scoring models predicting long-term survival and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), including myocardial infarction and stroke after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). All 4,821 consecutive patients who underwent isolated CABG at Lankenau between January 2005 and July 2021 were included. MACCE was defined as all-cause mortality + myocardial infarction + stroke. Variable selection for both outcomes was obtained using a double-selection logit least absolute shrinkage and selection operator with adaptive selection. Model performance was internally evaluated by calibration and accuracy using bootstrap cross-validation. Mortality and MACCEs were compared in patients split into 3 groups based on the predicted risk scores for all-cause mortality and MACCEs. An external validation of our database was performed with 665 patients from the University of Brescia, Italy. Preoperative risk predictors were found to be predictors for all-cause mortality and MACCEs. In addition, being of African-American ethnicity is a significant predictor for MACCEs after isolated CABG. The areas under the curve (AUCs), which measures the discrimination of the models, were 80.4%, 79.1%, 81.3%, and 79.2% for mortality at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years follow-up. The AUCs for MACCEs were 75%, 72.5%, 73.8%, and 72.7% at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years follow-up. For external validation, the AUCs for all-cause mortality and MACCEs at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years were 73.7%, 70.8%, 68.7%, and 72.2% and 72.3%, 68.2%, 65.6%, and 69.6%, respectively. The Advanced (AD) Coronary Risk Score for All-Cause Mortality and MACCE provide good discrimination of long-term mortality and MACCEs after isolated CABG. External validation observed a more AUCs greater than 70%.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Traditional Full-Sternotomy Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Procedures: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Hospital Costs.

We aim to compare hospital costs of robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus conventional CABG. All consecutive 1,173 patients who underwent conventional and robotic-assisted CABG between January 2018 and June 2021 were included. After propensity-matching, 267 patients in each group (robotic-assisted vs conventional) were included in the study. Patient selection for each group was decided by a treating surgeon with a heart team based on clinical factors. Syntax score was not assessed. Total costs (direct + indirect hospital costs) of patients who underwent robotic-assisted and conventional CABG were compared. Direct cost expenses included surgical operating time, hospital stay, surgical implants and supplies, catheterization laboratory, pharmacy, radiology and ultrasound imaging, blood bank, cardiology, and so on. Indirect cost expenses included general administration medical records, and so on. Using the propensity-matched groups (n = 267), we summed the total cost by year. Results for 267 propensity-matched patients (each group) evidenced that total conventional CABG costs were $9.5 million (average of $35,580/patient), whereas robotic-assisted CABG costs were $5 million ($18,726/patient). Therefore, the differences between robotic-assisted and conventional CABG costs were $4.5 million ($16,853/patient), favoring robotic-assisted over conventional CABG. Differences in direct and indirect costs were $2.2 million and $1.8 million, respectively. When the cost of the Da Vinci robot was added ($1,200,000), the total cost was $3.3 million ($12,359 × patient) lower in the robotic-assisted CABG group. Multivariate analysis showed that, mainly, the shorter hospital length of stay (7 vs 5 days) accounts for the reduced costs observed in the robotic-assisted CABG group. In conclusion, in a mature practice, robotic-assisted CABG decreases hospital length of stay, leading to reduced hospital costs compared with conventional CABG.

Robotic-assisted versus conventional off-pump coronary surgery in women: A propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) previously demonstrated its potential benefits in women; however, robotic-assisted OPCAB was scarcely studied. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether robotic-assisted OPCAB could further improve the outcomes in women and the potential impact of hybrid approaches with stents and completeness of revascularization on the late outcomes. METHODS: Women who underwent robotic-assisted or conventional OPCAB (with sternotomy) between May 2005 and January 2021 at Lankenau Heart Institute were included. Propensity score matching was used to match 273 pairs on 27 characteristics. RESULTS: In the intraoperative period, women who underwent robotic-assisted OPCAB presented longer operative times (6.00 vs. 5.38 h; p < 0.001), higher rates of extubation in the operating room (83.9% vs. 75.5%; p = 0.019) and lower rates of blood transfusion (13.2% vs. 32.2%; p < 0.001). In the postoperative period, women who underwent robotic-assisted OPCAB presented lower rates of new onset atrial fibrillation (16.8% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.016), need of blood transfusion (33.0% vs. 54.9%; p < 0.001), shorter intensive care unit (ICU) (46.1 vs. 49.8 h; p = 0.006) and hospital length of stay (5.0 vs. 6.0 days; p < 0.001). We observed no statistically significant differences in the rates of operative death between the groups (1.47% vs. 1.47%; p = 0.771). In the follow-up, we observed no differences in terms of overall survival regardless of hybrid procedures with stents and completeness of revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted OPCAB in women is as safe as conventional OPCAB and may further improve outcomes. Hybrid coronary revascularization was a valuable adjunct in the robotic scenario and completeness of revascularization did not play a role in this setting.

Hybrid robotic off-pump versus conventional on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery in women.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of three methods of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG): robotic off-pump hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) versus conventional CABG off-pump (off-pump coronary artery bypass [OPCAB]) and on-pump (on-pump coronary artery bypass [ONCAB]) in women. METHODS: Data on women who underwent robotic off-pump HCR or conventional OPCAB or conventional ONCAB between May 2005 and January 2021 were collected. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with doubly robust method was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 731 women were included (181 robotic off-pump HCR, 138 conventional ONCAB, and 412 conventional OPCAB cases). IPTW-adjusted analyses revealed the following: (1) for operative times, robotic off-pump HCR presented longer times when compared with OPCAB, but shorter times when compared with ONCAB; (2) compared with ONCAB and OPCAB, robotic off-pump HCR presented lower rates of reintervention for bleeding, intra- and postoperative blood transfusions, higher rates of extubation in the OR with less prolonged ventilation, lower rates of postoperative atrial fibrillation, and shorter intensive care unit and hospital length of stay; (3) no statistically significant differences for operative mortality were observed comparing robotic off-pump HCR with ONCAB (IPTW-adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07-7.85; p = .822) and with OPCAB (IPTW-adjusted OR: 4.27; 95% CI: 0.27-66.88; p = .301); 4. long-term survival was similar with HCR compared with ONCAB (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.36-1.50, p = .401) and OPCAB (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.50-1.58, p = .683). CONCLUSIONS: In our local experience, robotic off-pump HCR in women was as safe as conventional ONCAB and OPCAB and may further improve postoperative outcomes when performed frequently by a dedicated team, producing better perioperative outcomes without compromising survival in the long run.

Robotic hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional off-pump coronary bypass surgery in women with two-vessel disease.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) treats coronary artery disease (CAD) by combining a minimally invasive surgical approach with the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to the left anterior descending (LAD) artery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD vessels. This study aimed to compare immediate and long-term outcomes between robotic HCR and off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) via sternotomy in women with two-vessel CAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared all robotic HCR (LIMA-to-LAD plus stent; n = 55) and OPCAB (LIMA-to-LAD plus saphenous vein graft; n = 54) performed at a single institution between May 2005 and January 2021. To adjust for the selection bias of receiving either HCR or OPCAB, we performed a propensity score analysis of 31 matched pairs. In the immediate postoperative period, no statistically significant difference was observed for operative mortality and HCR was associated with lower rates of blood transfusion (25.8% vs. 54.8%; p = .038), and shorter hospital length of stay (4.0 vs. 6.0 days; p = .009). After a mean follow-up of 7.0 ± 4.9 years, we observed no statistically significant differences between the groups for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09-2.64, p = .401), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.60, 95% CI: 0.14-17.64, p = .703), stroke (HR not assessable; almost zero events), target vessel revascularization (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.08-2.47, p = .359), angina (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.20-2.01, p = .444) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.14-1.52, p = .202). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic HCR provides for women with two-vessel CAD a shorter postoperative recovery with fewer blood transfusions, with similar long-term outcomes when compared with conventional OPCAB via sternotomy.

Safe implementation of robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass: application of learning curves and cumulative sum analysis.

BACKGROUND: Learning curves are inevitably encountered when first implementing an innovative and complex surgical technique. Nevertheless, a cluster of failures or complications should be detected early, but not deter learning, to ensure safe implementation. Here, we aimed to examine the presence and impact of learning curves on outcome after robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the first 300 RA-MIDCAB surgeries between July 2015 and December 2020 was performed. Learning curves were obtained via logarithmic regression for surgical time. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was performed for (I) major complications including MI, stroke, repeat revascularization, and mortality, and (II) other complications, including prolonged ventilation, pneumonia, pleura puncture, lung herniation, pericarditis, pleuritis, arrhythmia, wound complications, and delirium. Expected and unacceptable rates were set at 12% and 20%, respectively, for major complications, and at 40% and 60% for other complications, based on historical data in conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). RESULTS: Demographic characteristics did not differ between terciles, except for more smokers in the first tercile, and less hypercholesterolemia and more complex procedures in the third tercile. The mean surgical time for all operations was 258±81 minutes, ranging from 127 to 821 minutes. A learning curve was only observed in the first tercile. Subgroup analysis revealed that this learning curve was only observed for procedures consisting of single internal mammary artery (SIMA) with 1 or 2 distal anastomoses but not with bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) or more than 2 distal anastomoses. CUSUM analysis showed that the cumulative rate of major and other complications never crossed the lines for unacceptable rates. Rather, the lower 95% confidence boundary was crossed after 50 cases, indicating improvement in safety. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that integration of RA-MIDCAB in the surgical landscape can be safely achieved and complication rates can quickly be reduced below those expected in traditional CABG. Collective experience plays a key role in overcoming the learning curve when more complex procedures and cases are introduced.

Precision incision: robotic coronary revascularization via 3.9-cm minithoracotomy.

Coronary artery bypass grafting remains the treatment choice for coronary artery disease; but sternotomy, the most commonly used approach, compromises its benefits with postoperative morbidity, higher complication rates, and prolonged length of hospital stay. Despite this, minimally invasive and robotic-assisted technology has not been adopted or widely embraced because supporting literature on robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting is extremely limited. Since 2005, the cardiothoracic surgical team at our institution has been developing and maturing an effective method using robotic harvesting of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) and beating heart surgery through a minithoracotomy for coronary revascularization. This surgical technique involves precisely placing the robotic endoscopic port immediately over the left anterior descending (LAD) artery target site. The robotically harvested LIMA is secured to the epicardium at the LAD target, the robotic instruments are removed, and the endoscopic port site is enlarged slightly greater than 1 cm to become the minithoracotomy and allow for LIMA-to-LAD anastomosis. The other two robotic ports are used to complete the procedure without a need for additional incisions. This standardized method has been used in more than 750 patients, and since 2009, the last 377 consecutive non-rib-spreading minithoracotomy incisions measured a median of 3.9 cm (mean [SD], 4.16 [1.2748] cm; range, 2.3-12.0 cm). This "How I Do It" article describes our methods in detail and associated robotic nuances.