Significant unprotected left main (LM) coronary artery disease is frequently associated with severe multivessel disease and increased mortality and morbidity compared with non-LM coronary artery disease. This study compared the clinical outcomes of patients with LM disease who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting, conventional coronary-artery bypass grafting (C-CABG), and robot-assisted CABG (R-CABG).This retrospective study analyzed 472 consecutive LM disease patients who underwent three different revascularization approaches at a tertiary medical center between January 2005 and November 2013.Of the 472 LM disease patients, 139 received R-CABG, 147 received C-CABG, and 186 received PCI. The need for target vessel revascularization (TVR) was highest in the PCI group. The R-CABG group had significantly lower rates of in-hospital and follow-up all-cause deaths compared with the other 2 groups (1.4% vs. 3.4% and 9.7%, P = .0058; 13.7% vs. 29.3% and 29.6%, P = .0023, respectively). Patients in the R-CABG group had significantly lower rates of intra-aortic balloon pump assistance, and shorter duration of ICU and total hospital stay compared to patients in the C-CABG group. However, revascularization modality, SYNTAX scores, and residual SYNTAX scores were not independent predictors of in-hospital or long-term mortality.In this cohort of LM disease patients treated at a tertiary medical center, PCI is a reasonable choice in patients with less lesion complexity but who are older and have comorbidities. R-CABG is feasible in stable LM disease patients with high SYNTAX scores, and is an effective alternative to C-CABG in LM disease patients with few risk factors. However, revascularization modality per se was not a determinant for long-term mortality in our real-world practice.

The treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) by coronary stenting (PCI) and the “gold standard” conventional coronary-artery bypass grafting (C-CABG) has been well explored in the literature. However, the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted CABG (R-CABG) vs C-CABG in MVD patients in real-world practice were unknown. We aimed to study the clinical outcomes of MVD patients who underwent R-CABG (robotic MIDCAB) and C-CABG at our institution between January 2005 and December 2013. A total of 516 MVD patients received CABG were recruited into this study. Among them, 281 patients received R-CABG and 235 patients underwent C-CABG. Patients in the R-CABG group were younger, and had fewer vessels with coronary artery disease (CAD), lower prevalence of chronic renal disease (CKD), higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), as well as lower Euro scores. The in-hospital and long-term mortalities were lower in the R-CABG group, but the incidences of target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR), myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke were not significantly different between the two groups. The long-term mortality was related to age, lower LVEF, and CKD, but not residual SYNTAX score, or completeness of revascularization. The revascularization modality (R-CABG vs C-CABG) was a borderline significantly independent predictor of long-term mortality (OR 1.76 [0.99–3.14], P = .055). Our study concluded that R-CABG, in comparison with C-CABG, for MVD carried out in younger patients involved fewer clinical complexities was associated with lower in-hospital and long-term mortalities in real-world practice. However, the long-term rates of TLR, TVR, MI, and stroke were similar. The long-term mortality was correlated with age, lower LVEF, and CKD, where R-CABG remained a borderline significant predictor after correcting for confounding factors. R-CABG could be an effective alternative to C-CABG for MVD patients with fewer clinical complexities in real-world practice.