Minimally Invasive vs Open Coronary Surgery: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Cost and Outcomes

Limited multi-institutional data evaluating minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) outcomes have raised concern for increased resource utilization compared with standard sternotomy. The purpose of this study was to assess short-term outcomes and resource utilization with MICS CABG in a propensity-matched regional cohort. Isolated CABG patients (2012-2019) were extracted from a regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Patients were stratified by MICS CABG vs open CABG via sternotomy, propensity-score matched 1:2 to balance baseline differences, and compared by univariate analysis. Of 26,255 isolated coronary artery bypass graft patients, 139 MICS CABG and 278 open CABG patients were well balanced after matching. There was no difference in the operative mortality rate (2.2% open vs 0.7% MICS CABG, P = .383) or major morbidity (7.9% open vs 7.2% MICS CABG, P = .795). However, open CABG patients received more blood products (22.2% vs 12.2%, P = .013), and had longer intensive care unit (45 vs 30 hours, P = .049) as well as hospital lengths of stay (7 vs 6 days, P = .005). Finally, median hospital cost was significantly higher in the open CABG group ($35,011 vs $27,906, P < .001) compared with MICS CABG. Open CABG via sternotomy and MICS CABG approaches are associated with similar, excellent perioperative outcomes. However, MICS CABG was associated with fewer transfusions, shorter length of stay, and ∼$7000 lower hospital cost, a superior resource utilization profile that improves patient care and lowers cost.