Coronary Endarterectomy: Analysis of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

BACKGROUND: Coronary endarterectomy (CE) is an uncommon and often unplanned technique used to approach difficult targets during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We evaluated the outcomes of CABG with CE (CE-CABG) using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. METHODS: All isolated, first-time, elective or urgent CABG cases from July 2011 to September 2019 in the Adult Cardiac Surgery Database were retrospectively reviewed. Because of a higher risk profile in the patients undergoing CE-CABG, we performed propensity score matching. Primary outcomes included operative mortality and postoperative myocardial infarction. For patients ≥65 years, long-term mortality and rehospitalization were evaluated using linked data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. RESULTS: Of the total 1 111 792 patients included, 32 164 (2.9%) had CE-CABG and 1 079 628 (97.1%) underwent CABG alone. The majority of CE-CABG involved a single-vessel endarterectomy (86.9%; n = 27 945); the left anterior descending was most common (40.9%; n = 13 161). Compared with propensity score-matched CABG, CE-CABG had increased operative mortality (3.2% vs 1.7%; P < .0001; odds ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.63-2.01) and postoperative myocardial infarction (6.8% vs 3.9%; P < .0001; odds ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.68-1.93). CE-CABG had higher risk of mortality in the first year and rehospitalization for myocardial infarction in the first 3 years but was comparable to CABG alone thereafter. Subgroup analysis showed no difference between CE-CABG of the left anterior descending compared with CE-CABG of other coronary arteries. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that CE-CABG has acceptable long-term outcomes and serves as a benchmark for what can be expected when this rare procedure is used.

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is associated with equivalent cost and shorter hospital stay when compared with traditional sternotomy.

OBJECTIVE: Mitral valve surgery is increasingly performed through minimally invasive approaches. There are limited data regarding the cost of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. Moreover, there are no data on the specific costs associated with mitral valve surgery. We undertook this study to compare the costs (total and subcomponent) of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery relative to traditional sternotomy. METHODS: All isolated mitral valve repairs performed in our health system from March 2012 through September 2013 were analyzed. To ensure like sets of patients, only those patients who underwent isolated mitral valve repairs with preoperative Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores of less than 4 were included in this study. A total of 159 patients were identified (sternotomy, 68; mini, 91). Total incurred direct cost was obtained from hospital financial records. RESULTS: Analysis demonstrated no difference in total cost (operative and postoperative) of mitral valve repair between mini and sternotomy ($25,515 ± $7598 vs $26,049 ± $11,737; P = .74). Operative costs were higher for the mini cohort, whereas postoperative costs were significantly lower. Postoperative intensive care unit and total hospital stays were both significantly shorter for the mini cohort. There were no differences in postoperative complications or survival between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery can be performed with overall equivalent cost and shorter hospital stay relative to traditional sternotomy. There is greater operative cost associated with minimally invasive mitral valve surgery that is offset by shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays.