Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2016 UpToDate®

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Definitions and technical issues

Gabriel S Aldea, MD
Section Editors
Edward Verrier, MD
Bernard J Gersh, MB, ChB, DPhil, FRCP, MACC
Deputy Editor
Gordon M Saperia, MD, FACC


Less invasive surgical techniques using laparoscopy and robotics through smaller incisions with specialized instruments have been applied to many abdominal, urologic, and gynecologic procedures. These alternative approaches are safe and effective, resulting in a reduction in patient discomfort and hospital length of stay and cost.

There is increasing experience with the use of similar techniques to open cardiac surgery. The definitions and technical issues related to minimally invasive coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) will be reviewed here. The clinical outcomes with these procedures and minimally invasive approaches to valvular surgery are discussed separately. (See "Off-pump and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Outcomes" and "Minimally invasive aortic and mitral valve surgery".)

To appreciate the potential value of minimally invasive CABG, it is useful to first review the complications associated with standard CABG.


Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), especially with the use of the left internal thoracic (mammary) artery to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) relieves symptoms, improves survival, and decreases recurrence of adverse cardiovascular events in selected groups of patients. Durability and survival are further enhanced by the use of more complete arterial revascularization [1,2]. The alternative in patients who need revascularization is percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), which is now usually performed with implantation of drug-eluting stents (DES). (See "Revascularization in patients with stable coronary artery disease: Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention" and "Coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Causes and rates of graft failure".)

The main advantages of CABG over PCI with DES are a lower rate of revascularization, correction of all coronary lesions including those that cannot easily or adequately be treated with PCI (such as chronic total occlusions and very long diffusely diseased lesions), and, in selected patients (particularly individuals with diabetes and patients with high Syntax scores), a reduction in myocardial infarction and long-term mortality. This benefit may be extended to nondiabetic patients with intermediate and high SYNTAX score [3-5]. The main disadvantage of CABG compared with PCI is its real and perceived invasiveness with its attendant longer initial recovery period (typically four to six weeks). Compared with PCI, the quality of life is similar if not superior for patients undergoing conventional CABG by one year [6-8].(See "Coronary artery revascularization in patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease" and "Revascularization in patients with stable coronary artery disease: Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention".)


Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Sep 2016. | This topic last updated: Sep 7, 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2016 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Lytle BW, Blackstone EH, Loop FD, et al. Two internal thoracic artery grafts are better than one. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999; 117:855.
  2. Aldea GS, Bakaeen FG, Pal J, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines on Arterial Conduits for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 101:801.
  3. Fanari Z, Weiss SA, Zhang W, et al. Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: Meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2015; 16:70.
  4. Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet 2013; 381:629.
  5. Yang XJ, Wei D, Huang B, et al. Is the long-term outcome of PCI or CABG in insulin-treated diabetic patients really worse than non-insulin-treated ones? J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65:1156.
  6. Fatima K, Yousuf-Ul-Islam M, Ansari M, et al. Comparison of the Postprocedural Quality of Life between Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review. Cardiol Res Pract 2016; 2016:7842514.
  7. Maznyczka AM, Howard JP, Banning AS, Gershlick AH. A propensity matched comparison of return to work and quality of life after stenting or coronary artery bypass surgery. Open Heart 2016; 3:e000322.
  8. Yang LX, Zhou YJ, Wang ZJ, et al. Impact of invasive treatment strategy on health-related quality of life six months after non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. J Geriatr Cardiol 2014; 11:206.
  9. Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM, et al. Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med 1986; 314:1.
  10. Tector AJ, Kress DC, Downey FX, Schmahl TM. Complete revascularization with internal thoracic artery grafts. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996; 8:29.
  11. Schmidt SE, Jones JW, Thornby JI, et al. Improved survival with multiple left-sided bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 64:9.
  12. Aldea GS, Mokadam NA, Melford R Jr, et al. Changing volumes, risk profiles, and outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary interventions. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 87:1828.
  13. Tomic V, Russwurm S, Möller E, et al. Transcriptomic and proteomic patterns of systemic inflammation in on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Circulation 2005; 112:2912.
  14. Reents W, Babin-Ebell J, Misoph MR, et al. Influence of different autotransfusion devices on the quality of salvaged blood. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68:58.
  15. Aldea GS, Soltow LO, Chandler WL, et al. Limitation of thrombin generation, platelet activation, and inflammation by elimination of cardiotomy suction in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting treated with heparin-bonded circuits. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002; 123:742.
  16. Ng PC, Chua AN, Swanson MS, et al. Anterior thoracotomy wound complications in minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 69:1338.
  17. Boonstra PW, Grandjean JG, Mariani MA. Reoperative coronary bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass through a small thoracotomy. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 63:405.
  18. Jones ML, Qiu S, Sudarshan C. Perioperative outcomes in hybrid versus conventional surgical coronary artery revascularisation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2010; 11:292.
  19. Sabatier B, Trinquart L, Emmerich J. Dual antiplatelet therapy in the secondary prevention of atherothrombosis: need for new therapeutic approaches. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 2010; 103:497.
  20. DeRose JJ. Current state of integrated "hybrid" coronary revascularization. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 21:229.
  21. Kirklin JW, Barrat-Boyes BG. Cardiac Surgery. Morphology, diagnostic criteria, natural history, techniques, results and indications, 2nd ed, Churchill Livingstone, New York 1993. p.73.
  22. Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM, et al. J. Maxwell Chamberlain memorial paper. Sternal wound complications after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: early and late mortality, morbidity, and cost of care. Ann Thorac Surg 1990; 49:179.
  23. Matsuyama K, Kuinose M, Koizumi N, et al. Sternal closure by rigid plate fixation in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: a comparative study. J Artif Organs 2016; 19:175.
  24. Tewarie LS, Menon AK, Hatam N, et al. Prevention of sternal dehiscence with the sternum external fixation (Stern-E-Fix) corset--randomized trial in 750 patients. J Cardiothorac Surg 2012; 7:85.
  25. Mohr FW, Falk V, Diegeler A, et al. Computer-enhanced "robotic" cardiac surgery: experience in 148 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 121:842.
  26. Dogan S, Aybek T, Andressen E, et al. Totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting on cardiopulmonary bypass with robotically enhanced telemanipulation: report of forty-five cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2002; 123:1125.
  27. Vrancic JM, Piccinini F, Vaccarino G, et al. Endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting: initial experience and learning curve. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 70:1086.
  28. Black EA, Guzik TJ, West NE, et al. Minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting: effects on endothelial and smooth muscle function. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 71:1503.
  29. Geskes GG, Dekker AL, van der Veen FH, et al. The enabler right ventricular circulatory support system for beating heart coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68:1558.
  30. Ascione R, Lloyd CT, Underwood MJ, et al. Inflammatory response after coronary revascularization with or without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 69:1198.
  31. Ascione R, Caputo M, Calori G, et al. Predictors of atrial fibrillation after conventional and beating heart coronary surgery: A prospective, randomized study. Circulation 2000; 102:1530.
  32. Cartier R, Robitaille D. Thrombotic complications in beating heart operations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 121:920.
  33. Chavanon O, Carrier M, Cartier R, et al. Increased incidence of acute ascending aortic dissection with off-pump aortocoronary bypass surgery? Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 71:117.
  34. De Smet JM, Stefanidis C. Acute aortic dissection after off-pump coronary artery surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003; 24:315.
  35. Caiati JM, Madigan JD, Bhagat G, et al. Vascular clips have no significant effect on the cellular proliferation, intimal changes, or peak systolic velocity at anastomoses in rabbit vein grafts. J Surg Res 2000; 92:29.
  36. Chavanon O, Perrault LP, Menasché P. Favorable aspect of stapled anastomosis: an endothelial function study. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68:1443.
  37. Katariya K, Yassin S, Tehrani HY, et al. Initial experience with sutureless proximal anastomoses performed with a mechanical connector leading to clampless off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 77:563.
  38. Cavendish JJ, Penny WF, Madani MM, et al. Severe ostial saphenous vein graft disease leading to acute coronary syndromes following proximal aorto-saphenous anastomoses with the symmetry bypass connector device: is it a suture device or a "stent"? J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43:133.
  39. Traverse JH, Mooney MR, Pedersen WR, et al. Clinical, angiographic, and interventional follow-up of patients with aortic-saphenous vein graft connectors. Circulation 2003; 108:452.
  40. Dewey TM, Crumrine K, Herbert MA, et al. First-year outcomes of beating heart coronary artery bypass grafting using proximal mechanical connectors. Ann Thorac Surg 2004; 77:1542.
  41. Anastasiadis K, Antonitsis P, Kostarellou G, et al. Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation improves quality of life after coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016.
  42. Kowalewski M, Pawliszak W, Raffa GM, et al. Safety and efficacy of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation when compared with off-pump and conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: evidence synthesis from a comprehensive Bayesian-framework network meta-analysis of 134 randomized controlled trials involving 22 778 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 49:1428.
  43. Calafiore AM, Giammarco GD, Teodori G, et al. Left anterior descending coronary artery grafting via left anterior small thoracotomy without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 61:1658.
  44. Subramanian VA. Less invasive arterial CABG on a beating heart. Ann Thorac Surg 1997; 63:S68.
  45. Cohn WE, Suen HC, Weintraub RM, Johnson RG. The "H" graft: an alternative approach for performing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998; 115:148.
  46. Voutilainen S, Verkkala K, Järvinen A, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting using the right gastroepiploic artery. Ann Thorac Surg 1998; 65:444.
  47. Grandjean JG, Mariani MA, Ebels T. Coronary reoperation via small laparotomy using right gastroepiploic artery without CPB. Ann Thorac Surg 1996; 61:1853.
  48. Azoury FM, Gillinov AM, Lytle BW, et al. Off-pump reoperative coronary artery bypass grafting by thoracotomy: patient selection and operative technique. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 71:1959.
  49. Heijmen RH, Hinchliffe P, Borst C, et al. A novel one-shot anastomotic stapler prototype for coronary bypass grafting on the beating heart: feasibility in the pig. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999; 117:117.
  50. Cohen HA, Zenati M, Smith AJ, et al. Feasibility of combined percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 1998; 98:1048.
  51. Isomura T, Suma H, Horii T, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery revascularization: off-pump bypass grafting and the hybrid procedure. Ann Thorac Surg 2000; 70:2017.
  52. de Cannière D, Jansens JL, Goldschmidt-Clermont P, et al. Combination of minimally invasive coronary bypass and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in the treatment of double-vessel coronary disease: Two-year follow-up of a new hybrid procedure compared with "on-pump" double bypass grafting. Am Heart J 2001; 142:563.
  53. 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; 68:356.