medigraphic.com
ISSN 2448-5640 (Impreso)
Diario Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Cirugía Cardiaca, A.C., y del Colegio Mexicano de Cirugía Cardiovascular y Torácica, A.C.

2024, Número 2

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Cir Card Mex 2024; 9 (2)


¿Podrían los procedimientos quirúrgicos de revascularización mínimamente invasivos convertirse en el estándar de oro para la cardiopatía isquémica?

Bulut HI, Lopes L, Aksit G, Sucubulak C, Candelario K, Balkanay OO, García-Villarreal OA

Idioma: Ingles.
Referencias bibliográficas: 44
Paginas: 46-51
Archivo PDF: 243.13 Kb.


RESUMEN

La cardiopatía isquémica es la enfermedad cardíaca más común y más mortal, y es una enorme carga para la salud que cuesta miles de millones de dólares. El tratamiento óptimo actual para esta enfermedad es la revascularización miocárdica y el método estándar de oro en el manejo a mediano y largo plazo es la cirugía de bypass coronario. Esta cirugía es una operación altamente invasiva debido al uso de una máquina de derivación cardiopulmonar y técnica de esternotomía abierta; sin embargo, al mismo tiempo, tiene un aumento a corto plazo en la tasa de morbilidad y complicaciones. La cirugía de revascularización coronaria sin circulación extracorpórea y la cirugía mínimamente invasiva con bomba o sin bomba se han introducido en los últimos años. No obstante, estos tratamientos aún no se han convertido en el estándar de oro generalizado y las discusiones sobre la durabilidad y la supervivencia aún están en curso. En esta revisión, analizaremos las técnicas de injerto de derivación de arteria coronaria mínimamente invasivas en términos de supervivencia y durabilidad.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Khan MA, Hashim MJ, Mustafa H, et al. Global epidemiology of ischemic heart disease: results from the global burden of disease study. Cureus. 2020;12(7):e9349. doi: 10.7759/cureus.9349.

  2. Dai H, Much AA, Maor E, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of ischaemic heart disease and its attributable risk factors, 1990-2017: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2022;8(1):50-60. doi: 10.1093/ehjqcco/qcaa076.

  3. Stone GW, Kappetein AP, Sabik JF, et al; EXCEL Trial Investigators. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(19):1820-1830. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1909406.

  4. Melly L, Torregrossa G, Lee T, Jansens JL, Puskas JD. Fifty years of coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(3):1960-1967. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.02.43.

  5. Pooria A, Pourya A, Gheini A. Postoperative complications associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery and their therapeutic interventions. Future Cardiol. 2020;16(5):481-496. doi: 10.2217/fca-2019-0049.

  6. Jawitz OK, Gulack BC, Brennan JM, et al. Association of postoperative complications and outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting. Am Heart J. 2020;222:220-228. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2020.02.002.

  7. Fortunato GA, Davierwala P. The current role and future perspectives of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting. J Vis Surg. 2023;9:40. doi: 10.21037/jovs-22-41.

  8. Albert A, Assmann A, Assmann AK, Aubin H, Lichtenberg A. Operative techniques in coronary artery bypass surgery. Switzerland: Springer Cham; 2021. Available in: https://dr-notes.com/operative-techniques-in-coronary-artery-bypass-surgery-pdf-ejg

  9. Cetin E, Can T, Unal CS, Keskin A, Kubat E. OPCAB surgery with an alternative retraction method: a single-centre experience. Cardiovasc J Afr. 2020;31(1):16-20. doi: 10.5830/CVJA-2019-038.

  10. Marin-Cuartas M, Deo SV, Ramirez P, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting is safe and effective in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022;61(3):705-713. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab371.

  11. Deutsch MA, Zittermann A, Renner A, et al. Risk-adjusted analysis of long-term outcomes after on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2021;33(6):857-865. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivab179.

  12. Shroyer AL, Hattler B, Wagner TH, et al. Five-year outcomes after on-pump and off-pump coronary-artery bypass. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:623-632. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1614341.

  13. Lamy A, Devereaux PJ, Prabhakaran D, et al. Five-year outcomes after off-pump or on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(24):2359-2368. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1601564.

  14. Diegeler A, Borgermann J, Kappert U, et al. Five-year outcome after off-pump or on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in elderly patients. Circulation. 2019;139(16):1865-1871. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035857.

  15. Puskas JD, Halkos ME, DeRose JJ, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease: a multicenter observational study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(4):356-365. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.05.032.

  16. Subramanian VA, Patel NU. Current status of MIDCAB procedure. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2001;16(5):268-270. doi: 10.1097/00001573-200109000-00002.

  17. Repossini A, Di Bacco L, Nicoli F, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass: twenty-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;158(1):127-138.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.11.149.

  18. Mastroiacovo G, Manganiello S, Pirola S, et al. Very long-term outcome of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021;111(3):845-852. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.06.025.

  19. Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145(3):e4-e17. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001039.

  20. Gianoli M, de Jong AR, Jacob KA, et al. Minimally invasive surgery or stenting for left anterior descending artery disease - meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2022;40:101046. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2022.101046.

  21. Wang XW, Qu C, Huang C, et al. Minimally invasive direct coronary bypass compared with percutaneous coronary intervention for left anterior descending artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;11(1):125. doi: 10.1186/s13019-016-0512-1.

  22. Cisowski M, Drzewiecka-Gerber A, Ulczok R, et al. Primary direct stenting versus endoscopic atraumatic coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with proximal stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery-a prospective, randomised study. Kardiol Pol. 2004;61(9):253-261.

  23. Piperata A, Busuttil O, Jansens JL, Modine T, Pernot M, Labrousse L. A single center initial experience with robotic-assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery (RA-MIDCAB). J Pers Med. 2022;12(11):1895. doi: 10.3390/jpm12111895.

  24. Vervoort D, Deng MX, Fremes SE. Commentary: in the hands of the few, less is more. JTCVS Tech. 2021;10:168-169. doi: 10.1016/j.xjtc.2021.10.015.

  25. McGinn JT Jr, Usman S, Lapierre H, Pothula VR, Mesana TG, Ruel M. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting: dual-center experience in 450 consecutive patients. Circulation. 2009;120(11 Suppl):S78-S84. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.840041.

  26. Rajput NK, Kalangi TKV, Andappan A, Swain AK. MICS CABG: a single-center experience of the first 100 cases. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;37(1):16-26. doi: 10.1007/s12055-020-01048-2.

  27. Barsoum EA, Azab B, Shah N, et al. Long-term mortality in minimally invasive compared with sternotomy coronary artery bypass surgery in the geriatric population (75 years and older patients). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47(5):862-867. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu267.

  28. Teman NR, Hawkins RB, Charles EJ, et al; Investigators for the Virginia Cardiac Services Quality Initiative. Minimally invasive vs open coronary surgery: a multi-institutional analysis of cost and outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2021;111(5):1478-1484. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.06.136.

  29. Lamy A, Wang X, Farrokhyar F, Kent R. A cost comparison of off-pump CABG versus on-pump CABG at one-year: the Canadian off-pump CABG registry. Can J Cardiol. 2006;22(8):699-704. doi: 10.1016/s0828-282x(06)70939-4.

  30. Lamy A, Tong W, Devereaux PJ, et al. The cost implications of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery at one year. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(5):1620-1625. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.06.046.

  31. Gaudino M, Angelini GD, Antoniades C, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: 30 years of debate. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(16):e009934. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009934.

  32. Scudeler TL, Hueb WA, Farkouh ME, et al. Cost-effectiveness of on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with coronary artery disease: Results from the MASS III trial. Int J Cardiol. 2018;273:63-68. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.08.044.

  33. Wagner TH, Hattler B, Bishawi M, et al. On-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a multisite trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96(3):770-777. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.04.074.

  34. Wang C, Jiang Y, Song Y, et al. Off-pump or on-pump coronary artery bypass at 30 days: A propensity matched analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:965648. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.965648.

  35. Hannan EL, Wu C, Smith CR, et al. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: differences in short-term outcomes and in long-term mortality and need for subsequent revascularization. Circulation. 2007;116(10):1145-1152. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.675595.

  36. Carmona P, Paredes F, Mateo E, Mena-Durán AV, Hornero F, Martínez-León J. Is off-pump technique a safer procedure for coronary revascularization? A propensity score analysis of 20 years of experience. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;22(5):612-618. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivw005.

  37. Guida GA, Chivasso P, Fudulu D, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in high-risk patients: a review. J Thorac Dis. 2016;8(Suppl 10):S795-S798. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2016.10.107.

  38. Deppe AC, Liakopoulos OJ, Kuhn EW, et al. Minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention for single-vessel disease: a meta-analysis of 2885 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;47(3):397-406. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu285.

  39. Patel AJ, Yates MT, Soppa GK. What is the optimal revascularization technique for isolated disease of the left anterior descending artery: minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass or percutaneous coronary intervention? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;19(1):144-148. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivu076.

  40. Rao C, Aziz O, Panesar SS, et al. Cost effectiveness analysis of minimally invasive internal thoracic artery bypass versus percutaneous revascularisation for isolated lesions of the left anterior descending artery. BMJ. 2007;334(7594):621. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39112.480023.BE.

  41. Lapierre H, Chan V, Sohmer B, Mesana TG, Ruel M. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting via a small thoracotomy versus off-pump: a case-matched study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40(4):804-810. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2011.01.066.

  42. Ziankou A, Ostrovsky Y. Early and midterm results of no-touch aorta multivessel small thoracotomy coronary artery bypass grafting: a propensity score-matched study. Innovations (Phila). 2015;10(4):258-267. doi: 10.1097/IMI.0000000000000185.

  43. Liang L, Ma X, Kong Q, et al. Comparing patient outcomes following minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery vs. coronary artery bypass grafting: a single-center retrospective cohort study. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2022;12(3):378-388. doi: 10.21037/cdt-22-10.

  44. The Minimally Invasive Coronary Surgery Compared to STernotomy Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Trial (MIST). ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03447938. [Accessed April 21, 2023] Available in: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03447938




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com