ObjectiveTo investigate the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICABG) through comparing the perioperative clinical effects of conventional surgery and MICABG.MethodsA total of 543 patients in the single medical group of Beijing Anzhen Hospital who underwent beating coronary artery bypass grafting from January 2017 to September 2020 were collected, including 161 patients receiving MICABG (a minimally invasive group, 143 males and 18 females, aged 60.08±9.21 years), 382 patients receiving median thoracotomy (a conventional group, 284 males and 98 females, aged 61.68±8.81 years). The propensity score was used to match 143 patients in each of the two groups, and the perioperative data of the two groups were summarized and analyzed.ResultsThere was no death, perioperative myocardial infarction or stroke in the minimally invasive group. Compared with the conventional group, the minimally invasive group had longer operation time (296.36±89.4 min vs. 217.80±50.63 min, P=0.000), less number of bypass grafts (2.86±1.03 vs. 3.17±0.78, P=0.005), shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.29±1.46 d vs. 6.78±2.61 d, P=0.031), less drainage on postoperative day 1 (339.57±180.63 mL vs. 441.92±262.63 mL, P=0.001) and lower usage rate of inotropic drugs (9.09% vs. 26.57%, P=0.001). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in postoperative ICU stay ventilator assistance time, blood transfusion rate, secondary thoracotomy rate, or use of mechanical equipment.ConclusionReasonable clinical strategies can ensure the satisfactory overall safety of MICABG. In addition, it has the advantages of shorter postoperative hospital stay, less bleeding and smaller dosage of inotropic drugs.
