{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04149548069022186, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04149548069022186, 'mean_word_length': 5.308290155440415, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation is a cost-effective alternative to conventional extracorporeal circulation for coronary artery bypass grafting: propensity matched analysis

Introduction: Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation has developed with the aim of reducing the impact of the adverse effects associated with conventional extracorporeal circulation. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting using minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation with those performed using conventional extracorporeal circulation. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients undergoing minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation coronary artery bypass grafting at a single centre. 2:1 propensity matching was performed to identify control patients undergoing conventional extracorporeal circulation coronary artery bypass grafting. Outcomes were compared using univariate analysis. Results: A total of 354 patients were included in the study, with 118 patients undergoing minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients were well matched on baseline characteristics. The mean logistic EuroSCORE was 3.95 ± 4.20. Operative times (3.31 ± 1.52 vs. 3.56 ± 0.73, p = 0.03) were significantly shorter in minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation cases. Patients who underwent surgery with minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation had significantly less 12-hour blood loss (322.3 ± 13.2 mL vs. 380.8 ± 15.2 mL, p < 0.01). Correspondingly, a significantly lower proportion of patients were transfused (25.8% vs. 36%, p = 0.04), and the mean number of red blood cells transfused was lower (0.45 ± 0.95 vs. 0.97 ± 2.13, p = 0.01). Similarly, the number of coagulation products administered was lower (0.161 ± 0.05 vs. 0.40 ± 0.09, p = 0.05). There was a significantly lower incidence of acute kidney injury (11.0% vs. 19.9%, p = 0.03). Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation was associated with a £679.50 cost saving per patient. Discussion: Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation for coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with a reduced requirement for blood transfusion, reduced incidence of acute kidney injury and a significant cost saving. Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation should be considered as an adjunct for all patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.