Back to search results

MICS CABG vs. Conventional CABG for Coronary Artery Disease

This study is comparing two types of heart surgery for coronary artery disease: MICS CABG (Minimally Invasive Coronary Surgery), which uses small incisions, and Conventional CABG, which involves an incision through the breastbone. Researchers want to see if MICS CABG helps people recover faster and improves their quality of life. You might be able to join if you are 18 or older and have blockages in at least two major heart arteries, or a significant blockage in your left main artery. The main goal is to measure your physical function and quality of life from surgery up to four weeks afterward. The current status of this study is unclear.

Study design
This is a multi-center, open-label, randomized control trial comparing two surgical procedures. It plans to enroll 176 participants.
What's involved
Not specified in the trial record.
Compensation
Not stated in the trial record.
Follow-up
Participants' quality of life and physical function will be measured from surgery up to 4 weeks post-operation.

AI-generated from the public study record. Only the study team can confirm whether you're eligible — confirm details with them before making decisions.

NCT03447938

The Minimally Invasive Coronary Surgery Compared to STernotomy Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Trial

Active, Not Recruiting
NAAges 18+InterventionalTreatment
Ottawa Heart Institute Research Corporation
~176 participants
Updated 2026-05-12 on ClinicalTrials.gov
What's tested:MICS CABGConventional CABG

At a glance

Recruiting sites
0 of 13 listed sites are recruiting right now
RecruitingSuspended, closed, or not yet open
What they're measuring
Quality of life - physical function
Measured over Surgery to 4 weeks post-op

Conditions

Coronary Artery Disease

Explore related trials

Coronary Artery Disease

Where it's being run

13 sites across 12 states
Ontario2
Pennsylvania1
Wisconsin1
Belgium1
Jilin1
Saxony1
Germany1
Karnataka1

Study leadership

  • Marc Ruel, MD · PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR · Ottawa Heart Institute Research Corporation

Who to contact

This trial hasn't published a contact. View it on ClinicalTrials.gov

Do you actually qualify for this trial?

Add a private profile and we'll compare every criterion below against your situation — and tell you which ones are met, uncertain, or excluding.

Check eligibility for this trial ~2 min · HIPAA-protected · delete anytime
Eligibility criteria

Inclusion

18 years of age or older
Angiographically-confirmed multi-vessel coronary artery disease lesions with \>=70% in at least 2 major epicardial vessels in 2 or more coronary artery territories (left anterior descending (LAD), circumflex (CX) and right coronary artery (RCA)) OR lesions \>=50% in the left main (LM)
Patients who, in the opinion of the investigator, are amenable for coronary surgery through either median sternotomy or minimally-invasive approach.
Patients who are willing and able to comply with all follow-up study visits.

Exclusion

\<18 years of age
concomitant cardiac procedure with CABG (e.g. valve repair or replacement)
Previous cardiac surgery, mediastinal irradiation, or significant trauma to the chest
Contra-indications for MICS CABG, including: severe pectus excavatum; severe pulmonary disease; hemodynamically significant left subclavian stenosis; morbid obesity; severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction; no adequate PDA or marginal branch target; absence of femoral pulse bilaterally.
Contraindications for conventional CABG via sternotomy
Concomitant life-threatening disease likely to limit life expectancy to \<2 years
Emergency CABG with hemodynamic compromise
Inability to provide informed consent.

What this trial measures

  • Quality of life - physical functionSurgery to 4 weeks post-op

    Comparison of the physical quality of life between the two groups four weeks after surgery using the physical function score of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). The physical function score is a scale from 0 (poor physical function) to 100 (excellent physical function, with an average score of 50. It includes items that assess physical functioning, bodily pain, physical role functioning, vitality, and generally health perceptions. Analysis restricted to high-volume recruiting centers (\>10 patients through study).