Comparison of economic and patient outcomes with minimally invasive versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting techniques.

Background: Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (miniCABG) decreases in-hospital morbidity versus traditional sternotomy CABG. We performed a prospective cohort study (NCT00481806) to assess the impact of miniCABG on costs and metrics that influence quality of life after hospital discharge.

Methods: One hundred consecutive miniCABG cases performed using internal mammary artery (IMA) grafting +/- coronary stenting were compared with a matched group of 100 sternotomy CABG patients using IMA and saphenous veins, both treating equivalent number of target coronaries (2.7 vs. 2.9), off-pump. We compared perioperative costs, time to return to work/normal activity, and risk of major adverse cardiac/cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 1 year: myocardial infarction (elevated troponin or EKG changes), target vessel occlusion (CT angiography at 1 year), stroke, or death.

Results: For miniCABG, robotic instruments and stents increased intraoperative costs; postoperative costs were decreased from significantly less intubation time (4.80 +/- 6.35 vs. 12.24 +/- 6.24 hours), hospital stay (3.77 +/- 1.51 vs. 6.38 +/- 2.23 days), and transfusion (0.16 +/- 0.37 vs. 1.37 +/- 1.35 U) leading to no significant differences in total costs. Undergoing miniCABG independently predicted earlier return to work after adjusting for confounders (t = -2.15; P = 0.04), whereas sternotomy CABG increased MACCE (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.4-7.6), largely from lower target-vessel patency.

Conclusions: MiniCABG shortens patient recovery time, minimizes MACCE risk at 1 year, and showed superior quality and outcome metrics versus standard-of-care CABG. These findings occurred without increasing costs and with superior target vessel graft patency.