CABG is associated with reduced rates of major adverse cardiac events, mostly driven by reduced repeat revascularisation. However, the RCT data are limited by follow-up, unrepresentative samples and rapid development of both surgical techniques and stenting. Research on real-world patient population or patient level data meta-analyses may identify risk factors and groupings who may benefit most from one strategy over the other.
The revival of surgical treatment for isolated proximal high grade LAD lesions by minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting.
Percutaneous coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and stent implantation have become the first-line intervention for patients with isolated proximal LAD-lesions. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB) has recently been developed to reduce surgical invasiveness for single LAD revascularization. This study focus on the question whether MIDCAB could be an alternative treatment for isolated proximal LAD lesions.
                Starting in 1996, MIDCAB was performed in 618 patients. Angiography was performed before discharge and repeated after 6 months at follow-up examination. In an ongoing randomized trial 150 patients with an indication for treatment of a LAD lesion have been included to compare the mid-term outcome after PTCA (n=79) vs. MIDCAB (n=71).
                In 618 MIDCAB procedures 30-day mortality was 0.6%, perioperative myocardial infarction rate was 1.6%. The conversion rate to sternotomy was 3.4%. The learning curve was demonstrated by a patency rate of 96.0% in 1997, 98.0% in 1998 and 99.1% in 1999, respectively. At 6 months patency rate was 94.4% in 1997 and 97.0% in 1998. The rate of severe stenosis >75% dropped from 5.4% in 1997 to 3.4% in 1998. The over all rate of reinterventions was 5.6%. The preliminary result of the randomized trial revealed a difference in the number of perioperative adverse events, 11.4% in the MIDCAB group vs. 6.3% in the PTCA group (P<0.05). At 6 months follow-up 88. 7% of the MIDCAB patients were free from angina vs. 58.2% of the PTCA patients (P<0.02). Restenosis and a positive stress test was diagnosed in 27.9% of the PTCA patients vs. 8.4% of the MIDCAB patients (P<0.02). Reintervention was necessary in 27.9% of the patients after PTCA vs. 8.4% of the patients after MIDCAB.
                MIDCAB is a safe and effective but technically demanding procedure. Perioperative adverse events may be expected, but early as well as mid-term patency rate are good. When compared to PTCA, the freedom from angina and the need for additional revascularization procedures after 6 months is statistically better for patients having MIDCAB surgery. Thus, MIDCAB is considered a valuable alternative for isolated proximal high grade LAD lesions.