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

Outcomes of Robotic MIDCAB With Hybrid PCI for Multivessel Coronary Disease Involving the Left Main: Results of 62 Cases

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid coronary revascularization is a clinical strategy that uses a combination of surgical revascularization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data on the hybrid approach for coronary artery disease involving the left main (LM) are scarce. We analyzed our cohort of hybrid coronary revascularizations with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) using robotic left internal mammary artery harvesting and PCI for multivessel disease with and without LM involvement.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and December 2020, 105 patients consecutively underwent robotic MIDCAB. Of those, 62 patients (59.1%) had multivessel coronary artery disease and underwent revascularization via the hybrid approach using robotic MIDCAB and PCI. Patients were then stratified into 2 groups for comparison: LM disease (n = 22, 35.5%) and non-LM disease (n = 40, 64.5%).

RESULTS

The SYNTAX scores were significantly lower in the non-LM group compared with the LM group (19.06 ± 6.41 vs 24.86 ± 7.04, P = 0.002). There were no other significant differences in demographics between the groups. There were no 30-day mortalities in either group. Freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 5 years was 72.2% in the non-LM group and 61.0% in the LM group (P = 0.89). There were no significant differences in 5-year overall survival (94.1% vs 83.3%, P = 0.074) or freedom from coronary reintervention (83.4% vs 75.4%, P = 0.699).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid robotic MIDCAB for patients with and without LM disease can be performed with acceptable results in selected patients. However, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions regarding safety and efficacy compared with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting.

Anaesthesia for hybrid revascularisation and valve replacement in a high-risk patient

Hybrid procedures offer a promising solution for complex cases where open surgery is high risk, relying on the collaboration of anaesthesiologists, cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists. We present a male patient in his 70s with severe aortic stenosis, coronary artery disease, ascending aortic aneurysm and heart failure who underwent a hybrid cardiac procedure, including transcatheter aortic valve implantation, percutaneous coronary intervention of the right coronary artery and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Through this hybrid intervention, involving a minimally invasive transcatheter and an open surgical procedure, the patient remained haemodynamically stable with minimal blood loss. 6 months postprocedure, he showed significant improvement in daily activities, aided by consistent physical therapy and cardiac check-ups. Current literature supports the hybrid approach for optimising risk-benefit outcomes, though further research is needed to define precise indications for its use.

The Predictive Value of Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value for Saphenous Vein Graft Disease in Post-Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Patients

Background: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the gold standard treatment for patients with significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and high-risk profiles for percutaneous coronary intervention. Despite the frequent use of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) in CABG, their patency rates are lower than those of arterial grafts. Identifying noninvasive methods to determine SVG patency is crucial. Aims: This study investigates the relationship between a novel inflammation marker, pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV), and SVG patency in post-CABG patients. Methods: The study included 507 patients who underwent coronary angiography (CAG) due to clinical indications between 2016 and 2023. Patients who had undergone CABG at least one year prior with at least one SGV used were divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of SVG stenosis (SGVS). Results: Among the 507 patients, 244 had SVGS. Patients with SVGS exhibited higher levels of diabetes mellitus and inflammatory markers such as NLR, SII, CAR, and PIV. Multivariate analysis identified PIV as an independent predictor of SVGS. ROC analysis showed that a PIV cut-off value > 315.5 predicted SVGS with 75.8% sensitivity and 68.6% specificity. Conclusions: PIV, a simple and easily measurable marker, demonstrated strong predictive value for SVGS in post-CABG patients.

Hybrid coronary revascularization: position paper of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions

Myocardial revascularization in coronary artery disease via percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery effectively relieves symptoms, significantly improves prognosis and quality of life when combined with guideline-directed medical therapy. Hybrid coronary revascularization is a promising alternative to percutaneous coronary intervention or CABG in selected patients and is defined as a planned and/or intended combination of consecutive CABG surgery using at least 1 internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending (LAD), and catheter-based coronary intervention to the non-LAD vessels for the treatment of multivessel disease. The main indications for hybrid coronary revascularization are (i) to achieve complete revascularization in patients who cannot undergo conventional CABG, (ii) to treat patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease with a non-LAD vessel as the culprit lesion that needs revascularization and (iii) in highly select patients with multivessel disease with complex LAD lesions and simple percutaneous coronary intervention targets for all other vessels. Hybrid coronary revascularization patients receive a left internal mammary artery graft to the LAD artery through a minimal incision along with percutaneous coronary intervention to the remaining diseased coronary vessels using latest generation drug-eluting stents. A collaborative environment with a dedicated heart team is the optimal platform to perform such interventions, which aim to improve the quality and outcome of myocardial revascularization. This position paper analyses the rationale of hybrid coronary revascularization and the currently available evidence on the various techniques and delves into the sequence of the interventions and pharmacological management during and after the procedure.

Minimal-Access Coronary Revascularization: Past, Present, and Future

Minimal-access cardiac surgery appears to be the future. It is increasingly desired by cardiologists and demanded by patients who perceive superiority. Minimal-access coronary artery revascularisation has been increasingly adopted throughout the world. Here, we review the history of minimal-access coronary revascularization and see that it is almost as old as the history of cardiac surgery. Modern minimal-access coronary revascularization takes a variety of forms-namely minimal-access direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB), hybrid coronary revascularisation (HCR), and totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB). It is noteworthy that there is significant variation in the nomenclature and approaches for minimal-access coronary surgery, and this truly presents a challenge for comparing the different methods. However, these approaches are increasing in frequency, and proponents demonstrate clear advantages for their patients. The challenge that remains, as for all areas of surgery, is demonstrating the superiority of these techniques over tried and tested open techniques, which is very difficult. There is a paucity of randomised controlled trials to help answer this question, and the future of minimal-access coronary revascularisation, to some extent, is dependent on such trials. Thankfully, some are underway, and the results are eagerly anticipated.

One-stage hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease— Periprocedural and long-term results from the “HYBRID-COR” feasibility study

Background

The constant growth of interest in hybrid coronary artery revascularization (HCR) is apparent. Yet, few studies report outcomes of the one-stage HCR. Consequently, the status of such procedures is not adequately supported in clinical guidelines. The aim of this study was to report the safety, feasibility, and long term-outcomes of the one-stage HCR.

Methods and results

Patients were enrolled in the prospective one-stage hybrid coronary revascularization program (HYBRID-COR). They underwent a one-stage hybrid revascularization procedure while on double antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with Ticagrelor: endoscopic atraumatic coronary artery bypass grafting (EACAB) for revascularization of the left anterior descending (LAD) artery and percutaneous intervention in non-LAD arteries with contemporary drug-eluting stents. The composite primary endpoint included MACCE (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events: death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeated revascularization) in long-term observation. The study cohort consisted of 30 patients (68% male) with stable coronary artery disease (26.7%) and unstable angina (73.3%). Procedural success was 100%. No death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke were observed in the perioperative period. One patient (3.3%) required chest revision and blood transfusion due to surgical bleeding. Kidney injury was noted in two patients (6.6%). In a long-term follow-up (median; IQR: 4.25; 2.62–4.69 years), two patients (6.6%) underwent repeated revascularization and one patient (3.3%) died due to MI. The overall primary endpoint rate was 9.9%.

Conclusion

One-stage hybrid revascularization, on DAPT, is a feasible, safe, and efficient way of achieving complete revascularization in selected patients. The complication rate is low and acceptable. Further randomized trials are required.

Hybrid coronary revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review

Aim: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) for multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) integrates coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous intervention in a planned revascularization strategy. This systematic review summarizes the state of this art of this technique. Methods: Major databases searched until October 2021. Results: The available literature on HCR includes three randomized trials, ten meta-analysis and 27 retrospective studies. The greatest benefits are observed in patients with low-to-intermediate risk and less complex coronary anatomy; highly complex disease and the presence of risk factors favored conventional CABG in terms of adverse events and survival. Conclusion: HCR is an interesting approach for multivessel CAD but should not be considered a 'one-size-fits-all' procedure. Further studies will specify the subset of patients likely to benefit most from this hybrid approach.

Five-Year Outcomes After Hybrid Coronary Revascularization: A Single Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines both surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization procedures. It offers a minimally invasive strategy for multivessel coronary artery disease and combines the advantages of both. However, quantitative long-term patency and clinical outcomes remain understudied. The objective of this study was to assess clinical outcomes and graft and stent patency at 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

From January 2004 to January 2015, 120 patients were enrolled in this study. They underwent robotically assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting of left internal thoracic artery (LITA) to the left descending artery (LAD) and percutaneous coronary intervention of non-LAD vessels. Primary outcome was graft (LITA-LAD) patency determined at 5 years of follow-up, assessed by computed tomography angiography and rest and stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS-MIBI). Secondary outcomes were stent patency and major adverse major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Also, freedom from recurrence of angina was assessed.

RESULTS

At follow-up, 18 of 120 patients (15%) had died (in 5 patients the cause of death was cardiovascular). Among survivors, follow-up was achieved in 83 of 102 (81%). In 76 of 83 patients (92%) there was a patent LITA-LAD graft and in 75 of 83 (90%) a patent stent was demonstrated. MACCE occurred in 36 of 120 patients (30%). Freedom from recurrence of angina occurred in 92 of 120 patients (77%).

CONCLUSIONS

HCR is a safe and a promising procedure. It provides a minimally invasive approach and results in complete revascularization with good 5-year patency and clinical outcomes.

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization has Improved Short-term Outcomes but Worse Mid-term Reintervention Rates Compared to CABG: A Propensity Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated short-term outcomes and mid-term survival and reintervention of hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting using a propensity score matched cohort.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease from 2007 to 2015 at a single institution. Patients were propensity matched 1:1 to receiving hybrid coronary revascularization or conventional bypass grafting by multivariate logistic regression on preoperative characteristics. Short-term outcomes were compared. Freedom from reintervention and death were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching selected 91 patients per group from 91 hybrid and 2601 conventionally revascularized patients. Hybrid revascularization occurred with surgery first in 56 (62%), percutaneous intervention first in 32 (35%), and simultaneously in 3 (3%) patients. Median intervals between interventions were 3 and 36 days for surgery first and percutaneous intervention first, respectively. Preoperative characteristics were similar. Patients undergoing hybrid revascularization had shorter postoperative length of stay (median = 4 vs 5 days, P < 0.001), less postoperative transfusion (13.2% vs 34.1%, P = 0.001), and respiratory failure (0% vs 6.6%, P = 0.03). They were more likely to be discharged home (93.4% vs 71.4%, P < 0.001), with no difference in 30-day mortality (P = 0.99), readmission (P = 0.23), or mid-term survival (P = 0.79). Hybrid revascularization was associated with earlier reintervention (P = 0.02). Hazard ratios for reintervention and patient mortality of hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional revascularization were 3.60 (95% confidence interval = 1.16-11.20) and 1.17 (95% confidence interval = 0.37-3.72), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite having favorable short-term outcomes and similar survival, hybrid coronary revascularization may be associated with earlier reintervention compared with conventional techniques.

The evolution of minimally invasive cardiac surgery: from minimal access to transcatheter approaches

The field of minimally invasive cardiac surgery has undergone rapid transformation over recent years. In this review, we provide a summary of the most current evidence supporting the use of minimally invasive aortic and mitral valve replacement techniques, as well as transcatheter approaches for aortic and mitral valve disease. As an adjunct, the use of robotically assisted coronary bypass surgery and hybrid coronary revascularization procedures is discussed. In order to obtain optimal patient outcomes, a collaborative, heart-team approach between cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists is necessary.

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.

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.

Repeat revascularization: Percutaneous coronary intervention after coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Repeat myocardial revascularization procedures are markedly different from de novo interventions, with increased procedural risk and technical-demanding complexity. However the number of patients previously treated with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) that need a repeat revascularization due to graft failure is increasing consistently. Late graft failure, usually caused by saphenous vein grafts (SVG) attrition, is certainly not uncommon. However PCI on degenerated SVG presents higher complication rate and worse clinical outcome compared with native arteries interventions. In acute graft failure setting, PCI represents a valuable option to treat postoperative myocardial infarction.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Revascularization Strategies for Patients With MVD/LMCA Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), a new minimally invasive procedure for patients requiring revascularization for multivessel coronary lesions, combines coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left anterior descending (LAD) lesions and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD coronary lesions. However, available data related to outcomes comparing the 3 revascularization therapies is limited to small studies.We conducted a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials up to December 31, 2014, without language restriction. A total of 16 randomized trials (n=4858 patients) comparing HCR versus PCI or off-pump CABG (OPCAB) were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular events (CVE), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effect and fixed-effect models. Ranking probabilities were used to calculate a summary numerical value: the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve.No significant differences were seen between the HCR and PCI in short term (in hospital and 30 days) with regard to MACCE (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-2.35), all-cause death (OR = 2.09, 95% CI 0.34-7.66), MI (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.19-2.95), CVE (OR = 4.45, 95% CI 0.39-19.16), and TVR (OR = 6.99, 95% CI 0.17-39.39). However, OPCAB had lower MACCE than HCR (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.00-0.95). In midterm (1 year and 3 year), in comparison with HCR, PCI had higher all-cause death (OR = 5.66, 95% CI 0.00-13.88) and CVE (OR = 4.40, 95% CI 0.01-5.68), and lower MI (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.86), TVR (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.05-2.26), and thus the MACCE (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.35). Off-pump CABG presented a better outcome than HCR with significant lower MACCE (OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.01-0.68). Surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities showed that HCR may be the superior strategy for MVD and LMCA disease when regarded to MACCE (SUCRA = 0.84), MI (SUCRA = 0.76) in short term, and regarded to MACCE (SUCRA = 0.99), MI (SUCRA = 0.94), and CVE (SUCRA = 0.92) in midterm.Hybrid coronary revascularization seemed to be a feasible and acceptable option for treatment of LMCA disease and MVD. More powerful evidences are required to precisely evaluate risks and benefits of the 3 therapies for patients who have different clinical characteristics.

Meta-analysis of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass versus drug-eluting stents for isolated left anterior descending coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes between minimally invasive coronary artery bypass (MINI-CAB) and drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for isolated left anterior descending artery disease.

METHODS

Randomized and observational comparative publications were identified using MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases (January 2003 to December 2013). Studies without outcomes data, without DES use, or using conventional bypass surgery were excluded. The outcomes of interest were cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and periprocedural stroke. Data were compared using the Mantel-Haenszel methods and are presented as odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and number needed to treat.

RESULTS

From 230 publications, we identified 4 studies (2 randomized and 2 observational) with 941 patients (478 had undergone MINI-CAB and 463 DES implantation). The incidence of target vessel revascularization at maximum follow-up (range, 6-60 months) was significantly lower in the MINI-CAB group (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08-0.30; P<.0001; number needed to treat, 13). The incidence of cardiac mortality and MI was similar between the MINI-CAB and DES groups during follow-up (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.44-2.47; and OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.43-1.58, respectively). In addition, a similar incidence of periprocedural death (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.21-3.47; P=.82), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.38-2.58; P=.97), and stroke (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.28-6.70; P=.70) was observed between the 2 treatment modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the available evidence, MINI-CAB will result in lower target vessel revascularization rates but otherwise similar clinical outcomes compared with DESs in patients with left anterior descending artery disease.

Advanced hybrid closed chest revascularization: an innovative strategy for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease†

OBJECTIVES

Conventional hybrid revascularization (CHR) combines minimally invasive placement of an internal mammary artery graft to the anterior wall and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-anterior wall targets. In this study we assess perioperative and midterm outcomes of advanced hybrid revascularization (AHR) defined as the combination of single or multivessel (MV) totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB) with single or multivessel PCI.

METHODS

In total, 90 AHR patients [median age 62 years (35-86)] were compared with 90 CHR patients [median age 60 years (35-85)] in terms of perioperative and mid-term outcomes. The outcomes of the three different AHR options (MV-TECAB + PCI, MV-PCI + TECAB, MV-TECAB + MV-PCI) as well as the sequence of the interventions were further compared. Risk factors for major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCEs) related to the hybrid revascularization strategy were calculated.

RESULTS

No perioperative deaths occurred either in the AHR group or in the CHR group, rates of myocardial infarction (3.3% vs 3.3%, P = 0.196) were similar between CHR and AHR. Operative times were longer in the AHR group [337 (137-794) min vs 272 (148-550) min, P = 0.002] and conversion rates slightly higher (P = 0.060); however, intensive care unit length of stay (P = 0.162) and hospital length of stay (P = 0.238) were similar. There was no difference in the follow-up survival (P = 0.091), freedom from angina (P = 0.844), PCI target vessel revascularization (P = 0.563), TECAB target vessel revascularization (P = 0.135) and MACCEs (P = 0.601) between CHR and AHR at follow-up. No differences were detected between the three variations of AHR in perioperative outcome, mid-term survival, freedom from MACCEs and reintervention. Neither the number nor type of TECAB/PCI targets, nor the sequence of interventions were significant predictors for MACCEs at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

AHR yields comparable results with CHR and can be taken into consideration as a sternum-sparing technique for the treatment of MV-coronary artery disease in selected patients.

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.

Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients≥65 years with multivessel coronary artery disease

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive left internal mammary artery-to-left anterior descending coronary artery grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention of non-left anterior descending coronary arteries. The safety and efficacy of HCR in patients≥65 years of age is unknown. In this study, patients aged≥65 years were included who underwent HCR at an academic center from October 2003 to September 2013. These patients were matched 1:4 to similar patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using a propensity-score matching algorithm. Conditional logistic regression and Cox regression stratified on matched pairs were performed to evaluate the association between HCR and CABG, and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (a composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke), periprocedural complications, and 3-year all-cause mortality. Of 715 patients (143 of whom underwent HCR and 572 CABG) in the propensity score-matched cohort, rates of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were comparable after HCR and CABG (5.6% vs 3.8%, odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 3.27, p=0.36). Compared with CABG, HCR resulted in fewer procedural complications (9.1% vs 18.2%, p=0.018), fewer blood transfusions (28.0% vs 53.3%, p<0.0001), less chest tube drainage (838±484 vs 1,100±579 cm3, p<0.001), and shorter lengths of stay (<5 days: 45.5% vs 27.4%, p=0.001). Over a 3-year follow-up period, mortality rates were similar after HCR and CABG (13.2% vs 16.6%, hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 1.43, p=0.47). Subgroup analyses in high-risk patients (Charlson index≥6, age≥75 years) rendered similar results. In conclusion, although the present data are limited, we found that in older patients, the use of HCR is safe, has fewer procedural complications, entails less blood product use, and results in faster recovery with similar longitudinal outcomes relative to conventional CABG.