Midterm Follow-Up After Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Techniques

Background Revascularization of the left anterior descending coronary artery can be performed by minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) or percutaneous coronary intervention techniques (PCI). The study compared the midterm results of both techniques. Methods The outcome of 206 consecutive MIDCAB and 256 PCI patients treated from 1998 until 2001 was retrospectively analyzed. Cardiologists determined the primary patient allocation for the distinct revascularization technique. Periprocedural complications and midterm follow-up, including quality-of-life assessment (SF-36), was reported up to 5.2 years (3.4 ± 0.7 years). Results Periprocedural and overall mortality (p = 0.206) showed no differences. Four MIDCAB patients required early reoperation but not for repeated target vessel revascularization. In 16 patients secondary PCI (7.8%) of other coronary vessels was performed. Repeated revascularization of the left anterior descending coronary artery was necessary in 24.2% of patients in the PCI group (p< 0.001), with 4.7% finally requiring surgical revascularization. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events, including myocardial infarction (p = 0.581), repeated target vessel revascularization (p< 0.001), or death (p = 0.206) was higher in the PCI group. This difference consisted basically of the need for repeated target vessel revascularization. Patient-based quality-of-life assessment (SF-36) was independent from the primary chosen revascularization method. Conclusions At midterm follow up, MIDCAB resulted in significantly superior results regarding the need for repeated target vessel revascularization compared with PCI, with no significant differences regarding other major cardiac events.