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.