Hybrid revascularization, comprising coronary artery bypass graft with exclusive arterial conduits followed by early drug-eluting stent implantation, in multivessel coronary artery disease

Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are widely used in the treatment of coronary heart disease, but the best revascularization method for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) patients is still controversial. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), together with CABG and PCI, have been proved to be feasible methods, but the long-term effect of HCR is not as clear as CABG.

METHOD

By October 2020, we retrieved articles from PubMed, Web of science, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases. The main results are based on major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE).

RESULT

A total of 18 articles (3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 observational studies) were included in this meta-analysis. The outcomes of MACCE in the HCR group at perioperative, short-term (30 days to 1 year), medium-term (1 year to 5 years) and long-term (5 years and above) follow-up period were similar to those in the CABG group. The mortality rates of patients in perioperative, short-term and medium-term follow-up were similar to those in the CABG group, but lower than that in the CABG group at long-term follow-up (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.69, p = 0.002). The revascularization rate was higher in the HCR group during the perioperative period (OR = 3.50, 95% CI 2.07-5.94, p < 0.001), short-term (OR = 3.28, 95% CI 1.62-6.64, p < 0.001) and mid-term follow-up (OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.64-4.92, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results reveal that HCR is a safe and therapeutically effective alternative in treatments for MVD patients. It has not only less short-term adverse effect, but also better long-term effect, especially in death.

Hybrid revascularization vs. coronary bypass for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Coronary artery bypass graft is the mainstay of treatment for multivessel coronary artery disease and is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention. Combined approaches such as hybrid coronary revascularization integrate coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention during the same procedure or weeks apart. These attempt to improve surgical morbidity and long-term outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Per PRISMA criteria, a systematic review of keywords "Hybrid Revascularization," "Hybrid Coronary Revascularization," "Surgical," "Surgery," "Treatment," "CABG," "HCR" and "PCI" was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS. Studies comparing this technique's performance on either single or two-stage approach against traditional multiple vessel coronary artery bypass grafting were screened and analyzed for our review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-two studies totaling 6981 participants were ultimately included for analysis. Mean differences in operative time, bleeding, ventilator time and length of stay were significantly lower in the hybrid coronary revascularization group. Odds ratios in transfusions and in-hospital myocardial infarction were also lower in the hybrid coronary revascularization group. Results for in-hospital and all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stroke, reintervention, and complete revascularization were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows hybrid coronary revascularization is a feasible alternative to traditional coronary artery bypass grafting. Short-and long-term outcomes including mortality, MACE, and postoperative morbidity are similar between both groups, while hybrid approaches are associated with decreased perioperative morbidity.

Is hybrid coronary revascularization really beneficial in the long term?

 

OBJECTIVES

This analysis aimed to compare both short- and long-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with different techniques and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

Twenty-three studies were included, covering 10 468 different patients, among whom 2403 patients underwent HCR with either simultaneous or staged method and 8065 patients underwent CABG.

RESULTS

Compared with CABG, HCR had a statistically significant lower risk of stroke [odds ratio (OR) = 0.55, P = 0.049], major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR = 0.69, P = 0.024) and blood transfusion (BT) (OR = 0.39, P < 0.001), whereas no significant differences were detected in mortality, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. A network meta-analysis showed that simultaneous HCR had significantly better outcomes in stroke (OR = 0.24, P = 0.01) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR = 0.29, P < 0.001), and staged HCR had a significantly better outcome in BT (OR = 0.31, P < 0.001). According to the frequentist statistic results, simultaneous HCR had the highest probability of being the best treatment in terms of mortality (84%), stroke (97%), myocardial infarction (88%) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (99%), whereas staged HCR had the highest probability of being the best in postoperative repeat revascularization (59%) and BT (83%). However, long-term results showed no significant difference between the HCR and CABG techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

HCR appears to be a feasible option for multivessel coronary artery disease patients. Compared to traditional CABG, HCR had lower risk of adverse events in the short term, but in the long term, survival rate and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events rate were similar between groups.

A Practical Approach to Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

Combined surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization, ie, hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) consists of surgical left internal mammary artery (LIMA) bypass to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and percutaneous revascularization of other diseased coronary arteries. Developed as a 1-stage procedure, HCR has not been widely adopted by the cardiovascular community. The recommended minimally invasive approach through a small left thoracotomy incision is technically demanding, and same-day percutaneous revascularization requires a hybrid operating room that is not available in most hospitals. In this review, we consider present HCR protocols, barriers to widespread adoption of HCR, and we give special attention to the surgical approach for the LIMA graft to the LAD and the timing of percutaneous revascularization. We conclude that grafting the LIMA to the LAD through a median sternotomy approach and delaying the percutaneous revascularization may facilitate the widespread use of HCR in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and a low to intermediate Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score.

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Utilization and Comparative Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) treats multivessel coronary artery disease by combining a minimally invasive surgical approach to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left anterior descending diseased coronary arteries. The objective of this study is to compare HCR and conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery medium-term outcomes.

METHODS

Data from multivessel disease patients in New York's cardiac surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention registries in 2010 to 2016 were used to compare mortality and repeat revascularization rates for HCR and conventional CABG after using propensity matching to reduce selection bias.

RESULTS

There was a total of 303 HCR (0.80%) patients and 37 556 conventional CABG patients after exclusions. After propensity matching, the respective median follow-up times were 3.72 years and 3.76 years. There was no difference between HCR and conventional CABG in survival at 6 years (80.9% versus 85.8%%, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [0.90-2.31]), but HCR had higher mortality excluding deaths during the first year (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.88 [1.10-3.23]). Conventional CABG patients were more likely to be free from repeat revascularization at 6 years than HCR patients (88.2% versus 76.6%; hazard ratio, 2.22 [1.44-3.42]).

CONCLUSIONS

HCR is rarely performed for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. HCR and conventional CABG had no different 6-year mortality rates, but HCR had higher mortality after 1 year and higher rates of subsequent revascularization that were caused by both the need for repeat revascularization in the left anterior descending artery where minimally invasive CABG was performed, and in the coronary arteries where percutaneous coronary intervention was performed. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combining minimally invasive grafting of the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention has become a viable option for treating coronary artery disease. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a range of clinical outcomes and hospital costs.

METHODS

To identify potential studies, systematic searches were carried out in various databases. The key search terms included "hybrid revascularization" AND "coronary artery bypass grafting" OR "HCR" OR "CABG." This was followed by a meta-analysis investigating the need for blood transfusion, hospital costs, ventilation time, hospital stay, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, mortality, postoperative atrial fibrillation, renal failure, operation duration, and ICU stay.

RESULTS

The requirement for blood transfusion was significantly lower for HCR: odds ratio 0.38 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.31-0.46, P < .00001) as was the hospital stay: mean difference (MD) -1.48 days (95% CI, -2.61 to -0.36, P = 0.01) and the ventilation time: MD -8.99 hours (95% CI, -15.85 to -2.13, P = .01). On the contrary, hospital costs were more expensive for HCR: MD $3970 (95% CI, 2570-5370, P < .00001). All other comparisons were insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

In the short-term, HCR is as safe as conventional CABG and may offer certain benefits such as a lower requirement for blood transfusion and shorter hospital stays. However, HCR is more expensive than conventional CABG.

Short-Term and Mid-Term Clinical Outcomes Following Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) is one of the standard treatments for coronary artery disease (CAD) while hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) represents an evolving revascularization strategy. However, the difference in outcomes between them remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analysis to compare the short-term and mid-term outcomes of HCR versus OPCAB for the treatment of multivessel or left main CAD.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane databases to identify related studies and a routine meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 6121 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in short-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.30-1.03, p = 0.06) or mortality (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.17-1.48, p = 0.22). HCR required less ventilator time (SMD: -0.36, 95% CI: -0.55- -0.16, p < 0.001), ICU stay (SMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.58 - -0.13, p < 0.01), hospital stay (SMD: -0.29, 95% CI: -0.50- -0.07, p < 0.05) and blood transfusion rate (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.49-0.67, p < 0.001), but needed more operation time (SMD: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.54-2.05, p < 0.001) and hospitalization costs (SMD: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.45-1.66, p < 0.001). The HCR group had lower mid-term MACCE rate (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26-0.92, p < 0.05) but higher rate in mid-term target vessel revascularization (TVR, RR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.32-3.67, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

HCR had similar short-term mortality and morbidity comparing to OPCAB. HCR decreased the ventilator time, ICU stay, hospital stay, blood transfusion rate and increased operation time and hospitalization costs. HCR has a lower mid-term MACCE rate while OPCAB shows better in mid-term TVR.

Mid-term follow-up outcomes of 2-staged hybrid coronary revascularization compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease

INTRODUCTION

Two-staged hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a novel procedure in selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, few studies are available on the mid-term or long-term outcomes of this 2-staged procedure as compared to off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB).

AIM

To compare in-hospital and mid-term follow-up outcomes of 2-staged HCR with OPCAB in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The present retrospective study analyzed the data from 73 patients who underwent the 2-staged HCR (HCR group) during 2012-2014 at the heart center. Three hundred and eighty-three patients who underwent conventional OPCAB by the same surgeon were selected for the comparative analysis performed on in-hospital and mid-term follow-up outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in the preoperative outcome between the two groups. The HCR group had a shorter operation duration (152.9 ±43.8 vs. 262.6 ±51.8 min, p < 0.05), less bleeding (558.6 ±441.3 vs. 1035.5 ±613.3 ml, p < 0.05), shorter mechanical ventilation (9.4 ±7.4 vs. 19.0 ±18.3 h, p < 0.05), and less blood transfusion (12 (16.4%) vs. 200 (52.2%), p < 0.05). The mean follow-up duration was 25.0 ±9.6 months in the HCR group and 22.8 ±10.6 months in the OPCAB group. The incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was similar in both groups (4 (5.5%) vs. 10 (2.8%), p = 0.408). The estimated 3-year survival was similar in both groups (log-rank χ2 = 1.041, p = 0.308).

CONCLUSIONS

The 2-staged HCR is a safe and effective surgical procedure and may offer similar mid-term follow-up outcomes to OPCAB.

Minimally Invasive Multivessel Coronary Surgery and Hybrid Coronary Revascularization: Can We Routinely Achieve Less Invasive Coronary Surgery?

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the gold standard in managing severe coronary artery disease. However, it is associated with prolonged recovery and potential complications, in part due to the invasiveness of the procedure. Less invasive CABG techniques attempt to improve the quality and quantity of life in the same way as surgical revascularization but with fewer complications. Minimally invasive coronary surgery (MICS) through a small thoracotomy allows for complete revascularization with good results in graft patency. Perioperative mortality is low, and there is decreased need for blood transfusion, lower surgical site infection rates, and an earlier return to full physical function. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) attempts to combine the advantages of coronary artery bypass grafting with those of percutaneous coronary intervention. Several studies have shown that HCR provides better short-term outcomes with regard to decreased ventilation and ICU time, reduced need for blood transfusion, and shortened hospital stay. However, the rates for major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality are comparable to conventional CABG, except for patients with a high SYNTAX score who displayed increased mortality rates. There is also strong evidence of a higher need for repeat revascularization with HCR compared to CABG. Overall, MICS and HCR appear to be viable alternatives to conventional CABG, offering a less invasive approach to coronary revascularization, which may be especially beneficial to high-risk patients. This article discusses approaches that deliver the advantages of minimally invasive surgical revascularization that can be adapted by surgeons with minimal investment with regards to training and infrastructure.

Current state and future direction of hybrid coronary revascularization

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The most optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease is a subject of ongoing debate. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) aims to combine the advantages of both percutaneous and surgical revascularization in a single strategy. This review provides a timely overview of the use, practice patterns, clinical outcomes and future perspectives of HCR.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of technological advances in stent technology and minimal invasive surgical techniques have enabled the use of HCR, in which the left internal mammary artery is grafted to the left anterior descending artery followed or preceded by percutaneous coronary intervention of non-left anterior descending artery lesions. Currently, HCR is reserved for a highly selected patient population, representing less than 1% of the total coronary artery bypass grafting volume in the United States. Clinical outcomes from observational studies as well as a randomized feasibility trial show encouraging results.

SUMMARY

HCR shows promising clinical results in patients with multivessel disease and/or left main involvement. Engagement from interventional and surgical communities, and adequate patient selection based on local expertise, and data from randomized controlled trials are needed to establish a permanent role in the armamentarium for coronary revascularization.

CABG, stents, or hybrid procedures for left main disease?

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, including grafting of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) with additional vein or IMA grafts to other vessels, remains the standard technique for treatment of three-vessel coronary artery disease in patients with an intermediate or high SYNTAX score. Unprotected left main coronary disease is most often found in association with multivessel disease. In these patients, CABG has long been considered the gold standard for revascularisation. However, the evidence is being challenged by technological and procedural advances in percutaneous coronary intervention. Especially in patients with low to intermediate anatomic complexity of left main disease, PCI can be an effective and durable treatment option. Left main bifurcation lesions, however, remain a challenging subset for PCI due to possible plaque shift and occlusion of a major side branch. While there is general agreement that coronary bypass revascularisation using the LIMA to the LAD provides the best long-term prognostic benefit, a combination of CABG to the LAD and PCI of the remaining lesions, a hybrid approach, takes advantage of the survival benefit of the LIMA to LAD bypass, while minimising invasiveness and lowering morbidity by avoiding median sternotomy, rib retraction, aortic manipulation, and cardiopulmonary bypass. In particular, elderly patients with severe concomitant diseases may benefit from this approach by avoiding CPB.

Developments in surgical revascularization to achieve improved morbidity and mortality

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains the main treatment modality for multivessel coronary artery disease and has consistently been demonstrated to have significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in comparison to percutaneous coronary intervention. In this article we will explore the advances over time and the recent refinements in the techniques of surgical revascularization and how these contribute to the superior outcome profile associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. These include the current outcome status of coronary artery bypass grafting; the major landmark trials, registries and meta-analyses comparing coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention; the developments in coronary artery disease lesion classification; the techniques for the physiological assessment of coronary artery lesions; bypass grafting using arterial conduits; the role of off-pump coronary artery surgery; the outcomes of reoperative surgery; hybrid techniques for coronary revascularization; minimally invasive coronary artery surgery and finally robotic surgery.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The concept of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-left anterior descending (LAD) graft and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to non-LAD vessels. Multiple comparative studies have evaluated the safety and feasibility of HCR and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel coronary artery disease (MCAD). However, the sample size of each study was small, and evidences based on single-institutional experience. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term outcomes of HCR with those of CABG for MCAD.

METHOD

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, as well as conference proceedings, were searched for eligible studies published up to March 2014. We calculated summary odds ratios (OR) for primary endpoints (death, stroke; myocardial infarction (MI); target vessel revascularization (TVR); major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs)) and secondary endpoints (atrial fibrillation (AF); renal failure; length of stay in the intensive care unit (LoS in ICU); length of stay in hospital (LoS in hospital); red blood cell (RBC) transfusion). Data from 6176 participants were derived from ten cohort studies.

RESULTS

HCR was non-inferior to CABG in terms of MACCEs during hospitalization (odds ratio (OR), 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-1.33)and at one-year follow-up(0.32, 0.05-1.89) , and no significant difference was found between HCR and CABG groups in in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcomes of death, MI, stroke, the prevalence of AF and renal failure, whereas HCR was associated with a lower requirement of RBC transfusion and shorter LoS in ICU and LoS in hospital than CABG (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.25, 95% CI, -1.62 to -0.88; -17.47, -31.01 to -3.93; -1.77, -3.07 to -0.46; respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis indicates that HCR is feasible, safe and effective for the treatment of MCAD, with similar in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcome, significantly lower requirement of RBC transfusion, and faster recovery compared with CABG.

Practice Patterns and Clinical Outcomes After Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in the United States

Background—

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involves a combination of surgical and percutaneous techniques, which in selected patients may present an alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Methods and Results—

Patients were included who underwent HCR (staged/concurrent) or isolated CABG in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (July 2011 to March 2013). HCR represented 0.48% (n=950; staged=809, concurrent=141) of the total CABG volume (n=198 622) during the study period, and was performed in one-third of participating centers (n=361). Patients who underwent HCR had higher cardiovascular risk profiles in comparison with patients undergoing CABG. In comparison with CABG, median sternotomy (98.5% for CABG, 61.1% for staged HCR, and 52.5% for concurrent HCR), direct vision harvesting (98.9%, 66.0%, and 68.1%) and cardiopulmonary bypass (83.4%, 45%, and 36.9%) were less frequently used for staged and concurrent HCR, whereas robotic assistance (0.7%, 33.0%, and 30.5%) was more common. After adjustment, no differences were observed for the composite of in-hospital mortality and major morbidity (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–1.16; P =0.53 for staged HCR, and odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.56–1.56; P =0.80 for concurrent HCR in comparison with CABG). There was no statistically significant association between operative mortality and either treatment group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–1.30; P =0.29 for staged HCR, and odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.99–5.17; P =0.053 for concurrent HCR in comparison with CABG).

Conclusion—

HCR, either as a staged or concurrent procedure, is performed in one-third of US hospitals and is reserved for a highly selected patient population. Although HCR may appear to be an equally safe alternative for CABG surgery, further randomized study is warranted.

Clinical outcomes after hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery: a meta-analysis of 1,190 patients

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) represents a minimally invasive revascularization strategy in which the durability of the internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft is combined with percutaneous coronary intervention to treat remaining lesions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes after HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive EMBASE and PUBMED search was performed for comparative studies evaluating in-hospital and 1-year death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

Six observational studies (1 case control, 5 propensity adjusted) comprising 1,190 patients were included; 366 (30.8%) patients underwent HCR (185 staged and 181 concurrent), and 824 (69.2%) were treated with CABG (786 off-pump, 38 on-pump). Drug-eluting stents were used in 328 (89.6%) patients undergoing HCR. Hybrid coronary revascularization was associated with lower in-hospital need for blood transfusions, shorter length of stay, and faster return to work. No significant differences were found for the composite of death, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization during hospitalization (odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.25-1.58, P = .33) and at 1-year follow-up (odds ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.20-1.24, P = .13). Comparisons of individual components showed no difference in all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, but higher repeat revascularization among patients treated with HCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid coronary revascularization is associated with lower morbidity and similar in-hospital and 1-year major adverse cerebrovascular or cardiac events rates, but greater requirement for repeat revascularization compared with CABG. Further exploration of this strategy with adequately powered randomized trials is warranted.

Status quo of hybrid coronary revascularization for multi-vessel coronary artery disease

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines bypass grafting of the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-LAD vessels. HCR has been performed as an alternative to CABG or multi-vessel PCI in thousands of patients since the late 1990s. In this review article, we provide an overview on patient selection, procedural sequence and timing, use of surgical techniques and anti-platelet agents. Additionally, patient recovery, satisfaction, costs and clinical outcomes of individual studies after HCR are evaluated. Future directions are also discussed, including the need for adequately powered randomized trials.

Hybrid coronary revascularization as a safe, feasible, and viable alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: what is the current evidence?

The “hybrid” approach to multivessel coronary artery disease combines surgical left internal thoracic artery (LITA) to left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention of the remaining lesions. Ideally, the LITA to LAD bypass graft is performed in a minimally invasive fashion. This review aims to clarify the place of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) in the current therapeutic armamentarium against multivessel coronary artery disease. Eighteen studies including 970 patients were included for analysis. The postoperative LITA patency varied between 93.0% and 100.0%. The mean overall survival rate in hybrid treated patients was 98.1%. Hybrid treated patients showed statistically significant shorter hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, and intubation time, less packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion requirements, and lower in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates compared with patients treated by on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This resulted in a significant reduction in costs for hybrid treated patients in the postoperative period. In studies completed to date, HCR appears to be a promising and cost-effective alternative for CABG in the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease in a selected patient population.

Developing a new hybrid revascularization program: a road map for hospital managers and physician leaders

Hybrid coronary revascularization, which involves minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery using the left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending and percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents for the remaining diseased coronary vessels, is an innovative approach to decrease the morbidity of conventional surgery. Little information is available to guide hospital managers and physician leaders in implementing a hybrid revascularization program. In this article, we describe the people-process-technology issues that managers and leaders are likely to encounter as they develop a hybrid revascularization program in their practice.