Evaluation of the PAS-Port Proximal Anastomosis System in coronary artery bypass surgery (the EPIC trial)

ObjectiveDuring coronary surgery, proximal vein graft anastomoses have been performed by using an aortic partial occlusion clamp to allow for a hand-sewn anastomosis. The purpose of this multicenter, prospective, randomized trial was to evaluate the efficacy of the PAS-Port device (Cardica, Inc, Redwood City, Calif), which allows an automated proximal anastomosis to be performed without aortic clamping.MethodsBetween June 22, 2006, and March 22, 2007, 220 patients requiring coronary artery bypass grafting with at least 2 vein grafts were enrolled. Within each patient, 1 graft was randomly assigned to receive a PAS-Port device, and the other was assigned to receive a hand-sewn anastomosis to the ascending aorta. The primary end point was angiographic patency (<50% stenosis) 9 months after surgical intervention. Secondary end points included average time to complete each anastomosis and 9-month freedom from major adverse cardiac events.ResultsOne hundred eighty-three patients received matched grafts that were angiographically assessed at 9 months. The 9-month graft patency was 82.0% (150/183) for hand-sewn and 80.3% (147/183) for PAS-Port grafts. The patency rate of PAS-Port anastomoses was statistically noninferior to that of hand-sewn anastomoses (95% lower confidence limit for difference, −7.95%). The freedom from major adverse cardiac events at 9 months was 97.7% for PAS-Port (95% confidence interval, 94.5%–99.0%) and 98.2% for hand-sewn (95% confidence interval, 95.1%–99.3%) grafts. The PAS-port device was associated with a 4.6 ± 3.9–minute reduction in anastomotic time compared with that seen with a hand-sewn anastomosis (P < .001).ConclusionsThe PAS-Port proximal anastomotic device produces an effective anastomosis with a 9-month patency rate that is comparable with that of a hand-sewn anastomosis. It allows for construction of a proximal anastomosis without aortic clamping and requires less time than a hand-sewn anastomosis

Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularisation Surgery: A Focused Review of the Available Literature

Minimally invasive coronary revascularisation was originally developed in the mid 1990s as minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting is a less invasive approach compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to address targets in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD). Since then, MIDCAB has evolved with the adoption of a robotic platform and the possibility to perform multivessel bypass procedures. Minimally invasive coronary revascularisation surgery also allows for a combination between the benefits of CABG and percutaneous coronary interventions for non-LAD lesions – a hybrid approach. Hybrid coronary revascularisation results in fewer blood transfusions, shorter hospital stay, decreased ventilation times and patients return to work sooner when compared to conventional CABG. This article reviews the available literature, describes standard approaches and considers topics, such as limited access procedures, indications and patient selection, diagnostics and imaging, techniques, anastomotic devices, hybrid coronary revascularisation and outcome analysis

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery with or without robotics: Examining the evidence

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery can be performed with or without robotic assistance. In this issue of the journal, Zheng et al. compare between these two approaches in a propensity-matched study over a 5-year period and show that the two techniques have similar successful short and mid-term outcomes. Although we are proponents of the robotic approach, we agree with their conclusions and discuss in this commentary some of the previously published studies that have shown similar findings