Hybrid revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease

Robotic Totally Endoscopic Reverse Hybrid Coronary Revascularization: Early and Midterm Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Reverse hybrid coronary revascularization (RHCR) is the integration of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) followed by sternal-sparing coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to review our RHCR experience over a 10-year period using PCI first followed by robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB).

METHODS

We reviewed the indications and outcomes in patients who underwent RHCR (PCI with drug-eluting stents first, followed by TECAB).

RESULTS

From July 2013 to August 2024, 882 robotic TECAB procedures were performed at our institution. Of these, 60 patients underwent RHCR. The mean age of the patients was 66.7 ± 10 years, and 74% were male patients. The target vessel stented was the right coronary artery in 52 patients (87%), circumflex coronary artery in 10 patients (17%), and diagonal in 4 patients (7%). The average time from PCI to TECAB was 3.8 ± 1.64 months. A total of 35 patients (58%) underwent multivessel grafting, with 74% bilateral internal thoracic artery (ITA) use. The mean operative time was 253 ± 88 min, and the mean hospital length of stay was 2 ± 0.76 days. There were no conversions, perioperative strokes, or myocardial infarctions. At mean follow-up of 34 ± 27 months, cardiac-related mortality occurred in 1 patient. Freedom from major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events including repeat revascularization was 93%.

CONCLUSIONS

RHCR is safe and feasible in selected patients with multivessel CAD. In experienced hands, stenting first followed by robotic TECAB with left ITA or bilateral ITA grafts resulted in excellent early and midterm outcomes. Further studies are warranted.

Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional Coronary Artery Bypass surgery in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease in a real-world setting: In-hospital outcomes and medium-term follow-up: COHOS study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the in-hospital and medium-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) in the real-world setting compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

All patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD) who underwent conventional CABG and HCR in our institution between January 2018 to January 2021 were evaluated in terms of length of intensive care unit (ICU), in-hospital stay, repeat revascularization rates, bleeding, stroke, and in-hospital mortality. Clinical outcomes (mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [MACCE]) were assessed at average follow up of 3.6 years.

RESULTS

Pre-procedural characteristics were balanced between the groups after propensity score matching. There was no significant difference in MACCE [Odds ratio: 0.57; 95 % CI: 0.05 to 1.52; p = 0.66], in-hospital mortality [n = 2 (1.9 %) vs n = 0; p = 0.80], post procedure stroke [n = 2 (1.9 %) vs n = 2 (3.7 %); p = 0.86], post-procedural myocardial infarction requiring repeat revascularization [n = 2 (1.9 %) versus n = 1 (1.9 %); p = 1] during the in-hospital stay of the patients in the CABG vs HCR groups respectively. HCR was associated with significantly lower requirement for blood transfusions, bleeding risk, in-hospital stay, and intensive care unit stay. Analysis of the outcomes after 3.6 years revealed no significant difference in MACCE [Odds ratio: 1.40; 95 % CI: 0.46 to 4.30; p = 0.55], and post discharge mortality [n = 0 vs n = 0; p = 1]. Both groups had similar rates of post-procedural myocardial infarction requiring repeat revascularization [n = 0 vs n = 4 (7.4 %); p = 0.278], and rate of re-intervention [n = 0 vs n = 3 (5.6 %); p = 0.41].

CONCLUSION

HCR may be considered as a safe and feasible alternative to conventional CABG in selected individuals with MV-CAD.

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.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Robotic Coronary Bypass for Left Anterior Descending Artery Chronic Total Occlusion

Background

Both percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) and robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass (CAB) offer viable options for left anterior descending (LAD) chronic total occlusion (CTO) revascularization. Our study aims to compare long-term clinical outcomes associated with these 2 strategies.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we analyzed data from 273 patients diagnosed with LAD CTO who underwent either PCI (n = 129) or CAB (n = 144) at a single institution. Long-term follow-up was available for 96 PCI and 125 CAB patients. We employed Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test to conduct cumulative survival analyses free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cumulative survival, survival free of myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization.

Results

In the study cohort, patients who underwent PCI exhibited a higher prevalence of comorbidities including diabetes (48.9% vs 24.6%; P < .001), lower ejection fraction (44 ± 14 vs 52 ± 10; P < .001), prior heart failure (36.6% vs 22.2%; P = .02), and prior bypass surgery (16% vs 0, P < .001). PCI to non-LAD vessels was performed as part of initial complete revascularization in 40.3% of PCI and 40.6% of CAB patients. Upon a median 3.4 years of follow-up, CAB patients had significantly higher rates of survival free of MACE compared to PCI patients (unadjusted hazard ratio, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.13-5.03). Although PCI patients had similar unadjusted mortality, they experienced higher myocardial infarction and repeat revascularizations compared to CAB. However, the risk of repeat revascularization was attenuated after adjusting for prior bypass, diabetes, and ejection fraction.

Conclusions

Among patients with LAD CTO, those undergoing robotic-assisted CAB had a higher 5-year overall survival free of MACE compared to those who underwent PCI. This discrepancy in outcomes can be attributed in part to the greater burden of comorbidities among PCI patients.

Clinical outcomes of different revascularization approaches for patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As surgical techniques continue to evolve, the optimal approach for revascularizing multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a matter of ongoing debate. Accordingly, our objective was to compare and contrast various surgical techniques utilized in the management of multi-vessel CAD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to May 2022. Random-effects network meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome; target vessel revascularization (TVR), and secondary outcomes; mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, postoperative myocardial infarction, new-onset atrial fibrillation, stroke, new-onset dialysis, in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a stent, off-pump coronary bypass graft, on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (ONCABG), hybrid coronary revascularization, minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass, or robot-assisted coronary artery bypass (RCAB) surgeries.

RESULTS

A total of 8841 patients were included from 23 studies. The analysis showed that ONCABG had the highest freedom from TVR, with a mean (SD) absolute risk of 0.027 (0.029); although ONCABG was found to be superior to all other methods, it was only significantly better than first-generation stent PCI. While RCAB did not demonstrate significant superiority over other treatments, it showed a greater probability of preventing postoperative complications. Notably, no significant heterogeneity was calculated for any of the reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

ONCABG shows a better rank probability compared to all other techniques for preventing TVR, while RCAB offers greater freedom from most postoperative complications. However, given the absence of randomized controlled trials, these results should be interpreted with caution.

The Current State of Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive surgical approach with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Despite decades of use, widespread acceptance has been limited. In this review, we conduct a comparative assessment of HCR in relation to traditional coronary artery bypass graft surgery and multivessel PCI. Although large-scale randomized data are still lacking, numerous studies have demonstrated that HCR may offer benefits regarding resource utilization and short-term morbidity while delivering comparable mid- and long-term survival compared with traditional bypass surgery. Compared with PCI, HCR may offer similar periprocedural morbidity while mitigating the need for repeat revascularization by providing a surgical arterial bypass graft to the left anterior descending artery.

Maximizing Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery With Enhanced Recovery (ERAS)

We convened a group of cardiac surgeons, intensivists, and anesthesiologists with extensive experience in minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) and perioperative care to identify the essential elements of a MICS program and the relationship with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS). The MICS incision should minimize tissue invasion without compromising surgical goals. MICS also requires safe management of hemodynamics and preservation of cardiac function, which we have termed myocardial management. Finally, comprehensive perioperative care through an ERAS program should be provided to allow patients to achieve optimal recovery. Therefore, we propose that MICS requires 3 elements: (1) a less invasive surgical incision (non-full sternotomy), (2) optimized myocardial management, and (3) ERAS. We contend that the full benefit of MICS can be achieved only by also utilizing an ERAS platform.

Clinical impact of coronary revascularization over medical treatment in chronic coronary syndromes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To provide a quantitative comparison between myocardial revascularization (REVASC) and optimal medical treatment (OMT) alone in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).

METHODS

Pertinent studies were searched for in PubMed/Medline until 12/03/2023. Randomized controlled trials that compare REVASC to OMT reporting clinical outcomes were selected according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death. Two investigators independently assessed the study quality and extracted data.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight randomized controlled studies (RCTs) including 20692 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The rate of cardiovascular mortality was significantly lower among patients treated with myocardial revascularization [risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.90]. Age (p = 0.03), multivessel disease (p < 0.001), and follow-up duration (p = 0.001) were significant moderators of CV mortality. Subgroup analyses showed a larger benefit in patients treated with drug-eluting stents and those without chronic total occlusion. Among secondary outcomes, myocardial infarction was less frequent in the REVASC group (RR = 0.74; p < 0.001), while no significant difference was found for all-cause mortality (p = 0.09) nor stroke (p = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis showed lower rates of CV mortality and myocardial infarction in CCS patients treated with myocardial revascularization compared to OMT. This benefit was larger with increasing follow-up duration. Personalized treatment based on patient characteristics and lesion complexity may optimize clinical outcomes in patients with CCS.

Minimally Invasive Isolated and Hybrid Surgical Revascularization for Multivessel Coronary Disease: A Single-Center Long-Term Follow-Up

INTRODUCTION

Some evidence suggests that surgical minimally invasive (MIDCAB) and hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) are safe and potentially effective at short-term follow-up. Data on long-term outcomes are more limited and inconclusive.

METHODS

Between February 2013 and December 2023, a total of 1997 patients underwent surgical coronary artery revascularization at our institution, of whom, 92 (4.7%) received left anterior mini-thoracotomy access (MIDCAB), either isolated (N = 78) or in combination with percutaneous coronary intervention (N = 14, HCR group).

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 75 months (range 3.1: 149 months), cardiac mortality was 0% while overall mortality was 3%, with one in-hospital mortality and two additional late deaths. Conversion to sternotomy happened in two patients (2.1%), and surgical re-explorations occurred in five patients (4.6%), of whom three for bleeding and two for graft failure. All patients received left internal mammary (LIMA) to left anterior descending artery (LAD) grafting (100%). In the HCR group, 10 patients (72%) showed percutaneous revascularization (PCI) after MIDCAB, showing PCI on a mean of 1.6 ± 0.6 vessels and implanting 2.1 ± 0.9 drug-eluting stents.

CONCLUSIONS

MIDCAB, in isolation or in association with hybrid coronary revascularization, is associated with encouraging short- and long-term results in selected patients discussed within a dedicated heart-team.

Perioperative Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and Management in Liver Transplant Recipients: A Review of the Literature Merging Guidelines and Interventions

Liver transplantation (LT) is the second most performed solid organ transplant. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a critical consideration for LT candidacy, particularly in patients with known CAD or risk factors, including metabolic dysfunction associated with steatotic liver disease. The presence of severe CAD may exclude patients from LT; therefore, precise preoperative evaluation and interventions are necessary to achieve transplant candidacy. Cardiovascular complications represent the earliest nongraft-related cause of death post-transplantation. Timely intervention to reduce cardiovascular events depends on adequate CAD screening. Coronary disease screening in end-stage liver disease is challenging because standard noninvasive CAD screening tests have low sensitivity due to hyperdynamic state and vasodilatation. As a result, there is overuse of invasive coronary angiography to exclude severe CAD. Coronary artery calcium scoring using a computed tomography scan is a tool for the prediction of cardiovascular events, and can be used to achieve risk stratification in LT candidates. Recent literature shows that qualitative assessment on both noncontrast- and contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography can be used instead of calcium score to assess the presence of coronary calcium. With increasing prevalence, protocols to address CAD in LT candidates must be reconsidered. Percutaneous coronary intervention could allow a shorter duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy in simple lesions, with safer perioperative outcomes. Hybrid coronary revascularization is an option for high-risk LT candidates with multivessel disease nonamenable to percutaneous coronary intervention. The objective of this review is to evaluate existing methods for preoperative cardiovascular risk stratification, and to describe interventions before surgery to optimize patient outcomes and reduce cardiovascular event risk.

Examining the Outcomes of Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in Acute STEMI Patients from 2015 to 2022

Background

The global rise of chronic diseases, especially cardiovascular disease (CVD), poses a significant public health challenge, being a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. In Iran, the surge in CVD incidence and its risk factors, along with a decrease in the age of onset, has notably increased the reliance on coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as a life-saving intervention. Staged hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), which combines percutaneous coronary intervention with delayed CABG, offers a novel approach for patients with complex coronary artery disease, potentially improving survival and reducing complications. Considering the newness of this treatment method and the limitations of previous studies, we investigated the results of staged HCR in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients in this study.

Methods

This observational study was performed on consecutive patients with acute STEMI who underwent staged HCR and were referred to Valiasr and Razi hospitals in Birjand from 2015 to 2022. The required information (demographic information, angiography result, and operation side effects) was collected in a checklist. If necessary, the patients were contacted by phone. After collecting the data, they were entered into SPSS version 16 software.

Results

This study was conducted on 33 patients with a mean age of 64.88 ± 9.24 years (69.7% male). The average hospital stay was 11.6 ± 8.9 days (3 to 72 days). The mean ejection fraction and syntax score were 36.5% ± 10.2% and 31.21 ± 6.7, respectively. Following surgery and during hospitalization, arrhythmias were observed, including 33.3% with premature ventricular contractions, 18.1% with atrial fibrillation, and 3.1% with ventricular tachycardia. The average number of pack cells (red blood cells that have been separated for blood transfusion) and creatinine changes before and after hybrid surgery were 640.9 ± 670.9 cc and 0.055 ± 0.07. In the follow-up, 9.09% of patients had late mortality, 6.1% of patients had urinary tract infections during hospitalization, 6.1% of patients had surgical site infections, 3.1% needed dialysis, and none of the studied patients had premature death or need for reintervention.

Conclusions

The results of our study indicated that staged HCR performed early after an ACS is not associated with significant mortality or complications. Therefore, it is advisable to consider staged HCR as a surgical option in appropriate cases.

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.

Novel Aspects Targeting Platelets in Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease—A Translational Perspective

Platelets are important cellular targets in cardiovascular disease. Based on insights from basic science, translational approaches and clinical studies, a distinguished anti-platelet drug treatment regimen for cardiovascular patients could be established. Furthermore, platelets are increasingly considered as cells mediating effects “beyond thrombosis”, including vascular inflammation, tissue remodeling and healing of vascular and tissue lesions. This review has its focus on the functions and interactions of platelets with potential translational and clinical relevance. The role of platelets for the development of atherosclerosis and therapeutic modalities for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic disease are addressed. Furthermore, novel therapeutic options for inhibiting platelet function and the use of platelets in regenerative medicine are considered.

A Nationwide Study of Clinical Outcomes After Robot-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery and Hybrid Revascularization in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

Robot-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB) surgery and hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) are minimally invasive alternative strategies to conventional coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with isolated left anterior descending (LAD) stenosis or multivessel coronary disease. We analyzed a large, multicenter data-set based on the Netherlands Heart Registration including all patients undergoing RA-MIDCAB.

METHODS

We included 440 consecutive patients who underwent RA-MIDCAB with the left internal thoracic artery to LAD between January 2016 and December 2020. A proportion of patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-LAD vessels (i.e., HCR). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at median follow-up of 1 year, which was subdivided into cardiac and noncardiac. Secondary outcomes included target vessel revascularization (TVR) at median follow-up as well as 30-day mortality, perioperative myocardial infarction, reoperation for bleeding or anastomosis-related problems, and in-hospital ischemic cerebrovascular accident (iCVA).

RESULTS

Among all patients, 91 (21%) underwent HCR. At median (IQR) follow-up of 19 (8 to 28) months, 11 patients (2.5%) had died. In 7 patients, the cause of death was defined as cardiac. TVR occurred in 25 patients (5.7%), of whom 4 underwent CABG and 21 underwent PCI. At 30-day follow-up, 6 patients (1.4%) had a perioperative myocardial infarction, of whom 1 died. One patient (0.2%) developed an iCVA, and 18 patients (4.1%) underwent reoperation for bleeding or anastomosis-related problems.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical outcomes of patients undergoing RA-MIDCAB or HCR in the Netherlands are good and promising when compared with the currently available literature.

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD): A meta-analysis of 14 studies comprising 4226 patients

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with traditional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD).

BACKGROUND

HCR has emerged as an alternative to CABG in patients with MVCAD. Through minimally invasive surgical techniques, HCR carries the potential for faster recovery postoperatively, fewer complications, and lower utilization of resources.

METHODS

Systematic search of electronic databases was conducted up to December 2021 and studies comparing HCR with CABG in the treatment of MVCAD were included in this meta-analysis. Primary outcomes of interest were incidence of 5-year mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (12 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials) comprising 4226 patients were included. The rates of 5-year mortality (odds ratios [OR]: 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.62; I²  = 83.0%) and long-term MACCE (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.47-2.01; I²  = 74.7%) were comparable between HCR and CABG groups. HCR was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of perioperative blood transfusion (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.25-0.51; I²  = 55.9%), shorter mean hospital stay (weighted mean difference: -2.04; 95% CI: -2.60 to -1.47; I²  = 54%), and risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.23-0.88; p = 0.02). CABG demonstrated a lower likelihood of requiring long-term repeat revascularization (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.03-2.20; I²  = 18%) over a follow-up duration of 29.14 ± 21.75 months.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that HCR is feasible and safe for the treatment of MVCAD. However, benefits of HCR should be carefully weighed against the increased long-term risk of repeat-revascularization when selecting patients, and further studies evaluating differences in long-term mortality between HCR and CABG are required.

Left Internal Mammary Artery Operative Topography for MIDCAB and TECAB Procedures

OBJECTIVE

The left internal mammary artery (LIMA) is a common arterial graft in minimally invasive coronary surgery (MICS), such as minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) or totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB). The aim of this study was to perform an analysis of the LIMA operative topography during MICS.

METHODS

A total of 104 computed tomography angiographies were analyzed retrospectively using 3-dimensional reconstruction and visualization software. Measurements were developed in relation to the anatomical midpoint of the sternal body (SBMP). Parameters were evaluated as lengths, distances, diagonals, or categorical descriptions.

RESULTS

A total of 208 internal mammary arteries of each side were analyzed with the following results: (1) LIMA width = 2.7 mm, (2) SBMP-LIMA bifurcation length = 6.2 cm, (3) SBMP-LIMA distance = 3.2 ± 0.5 cm, (4) xiphoid midpoint-LIMA distance = 3.5 ± 0.7 cm, (5) sternal line-LIMA distance = 1.7 ± 0.3 cm, (6) xiphoid end projection-LIMA bifurcation length = 2.2 ± 1.0 cm, (7) midsternal line-LIMA bifurcation distance = 3.3 ± 0.8 cm, (8) xiphoid end-LIMA bifurcation diagonal = 4.1 ± 0.9 cm, (9) LIMA-left coronary artery distance = 7.0 ± 1.4 cm at the proximal and 7.1 ± 1.3 cm at the distal segment, and (10) LIMA-left anterior descending artery distance = 5.5 ± 1.1 cm at proximal, 4.3 cm at middle, and 4.2 ± 1.5 cm at distal segment. The extent of LIMA bifurcation ranged from the level of 5 (1%) to 7 (6%) rib cartilages.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the detailed surgical anatomy of LIMA, it was concluded that the fourth intercostal space should be considered as an appropriate approach for MIDCAB or TECAB in the studied region.

Development and evaluation of a radiomics model of resting 13N-ammonia positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging to predict coronary artery stenosis in patients with suspected coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND

Coronary angiography (CAG) is usually performed in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) to evaluate the coronary artery stenosis. However, patients with iodine allergy and renal dysfunction are not suitable for CAG. We try to develop a radiomics machine learning model based on rest 13N-ammonia (13N-NH3) positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) to predict coronary stenosis.

METHODS

Eighty-four patients were included with the inclusion criteria: adult patients; suspected CHD; resting MPI and CAG were performed; and complete data. Coronary artery stenosis >75% were considered to be significant stenosis. Patients were randomly divided into a training group and a testing group with a ratio of 1:1. Myocardial blood flow (MBF), perfusion defect extent (EXT), total perfusion deficit (TPD), and summed rest score (SRS) were obtained. Myocardial static images of the left ventricular (LV) coronary segments were segmented, and radiomics features were extracted. In the training set, the conventional parameter (MPI model) and radiomics (Rad model) models were constructed using the machine learning method and were combined to construct a nomogram. The models' performance was evaluated by area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, decision analysis curve (DCA), and calibration curves. Testing and subgroup analysis were performed.

RESULTS

MPI model was composed of MBF and EXT, and Rad model was composed of 12 radiomics features. In the training set, the AUC/accuracy/sensitivity/specificity of the MPI model, Rad model, and the nomogram were 0.795/0.778/0.937/0.511, 0.912/0.825/0.760/0.936 and 0.911/0.865/0.924/0.766 respectively. In the testing set, the AUC/accuracy/sensitivity/specificity of the MPI model, Rad model, and the nomogram were 0.798/0.722/0.659/0.841, 0.887/0.810/0.744/0.932 and 0.900/0.849/0.854/0.841 respectively. The AUC of Rad model and nomogram were significantly higher than that of MPI model. The DCA curve also showed that the clinical net benefit of the Rad model and nomogram was similar but greater than that of MPI model. The calibration curve showed good agreement between the observed and predicted values of the Rad model. In the subgroup analysis of Rad model, there was no significant difference in AUC between subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The Rad model is more accurate than the MPI model in predicting coronary stenosis. This noninvasive technique could help improve risk stratification and had good generalization ability.

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.

Unilateral left-sided thoracoscopic ablation of atrial fibrillation concomitant to minimally invasive bypass grafting of the left anterior descending artery

OBJECTIVES

Thoracoscopic ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) with robot-assisted left internal mammary artery (LIMA) harvesting may represent a safe and effective alternative to more invasive surgical approaches via sternotomy. The aim of our study was to describe the feasibility, safety and efficacy of a unilateral left-sided thoracoscopic AF ablation and concomitant MIDCAB surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a prospectively gathered cohort was performed of all consecutive patients with AF and at least a critical left anterior descending artery (LAD) stenosis that underwent unilateral left-sided thoracoscopic AF ablation and concomitant off-pump MIDCAB surgery in the Maastricht University Medical Centre between 2017 and 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients were included [age 69 years (standard deviation = 8), paroxysmal AF 61%, left atrial volume index 42 ml/m2 (standard deviation = 11)]. Unilateral left-sided thoracoscopic isolation of the left (n = 23) and right (n = 22) pulmonary veins and box (n = 21) by radiofrequency ablation was succeeded by epicardial validation of exit- and entrance block (n = 22). All patients received robot-assisted LIMA harvesting and off-pump LIMA-LAD anastomosis through a left mini-thoracotomy. The perioperative complications consisted of one bleeding of the thoracotomy wound and one aborted myocardial infarction not requiring intervention. The mean duration of hospital stay was 6 days (standard deviation = 2). After discharge, cardiac hospital readmission occurred in 4 patients (AF n = 1; pleural- and pericardial effusion n = 2, myocardial infarction requiring the percutaneous intervention of the LIMA-LAD n = 1) within 1 year. After 12 months, 17/21 (81%) patients were in sinus rhythm when allowing anti-arrhythmic drugs. Finally, the left atrial ejection fraction improved postoperatively [26% (standard deviation = 11) to 38% (standard deviation = 7), P = 0.01].

CONCLUSIONS

In this initial feasibility and early safety study, unilateral left-sided thoracoscopic AF ablation and concomitant MIDCAB for LIMA-LAD grafting is a feasible, safe and efficacious for patients with AF and a critical LAD stenosis.

Early home discharge after robot-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting

OBJECTIVES

Robot-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been developed as a less invasive alternative for conventional CABG to enhance postoperative recovery, patient satisfaction and early discharge to home. Furthermore, it may provide a basis for hybrid coronary revascularization. To determine the feasibility of this procedure, we compared robot-assisted with conventional off-pump CABG.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing a robot-assisted left internal mammary artery-to-left anterior descending coronary artery procedure were compared to consecutive patients undergoing conventional off-pump CABG for single-vessel disease from October 2016 to July 2019. The primary outcome was discharge to home within 5 days after the operation. Secondary outcomes were total hospital stay, reoperations within 48 h, transfusions, atrial fibrillation, 30-day mortality and quality of life 1 month postoperatively. A propensity matched cohort was assembled to correct for possible confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients who had robot-assisted CABG were compared to 194 patients who had conventional off-pump CABG. The primary outcome was reached in 51% of the robot-assisted group versus 19% of the conventional off-pump group (P < 0.01). The median postoperative hospital stay was 5 days for the robot-assisted group versus 7 days in the conventional off-pump group (P < 0.01). Other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups, and the quality of life 1 month after the operation was equal. The results after propensity matching were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Early discharge to home is more frequent for patients who have robot-assisted CABG than in those who have conventional off-pump CABG, with no difference in health-related quality of life. Therefore, this approach may reduce healthcare resources and provide a solid basis for hybrid coronary revascularization.

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.

One-Stop Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

One-stop hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a promising revascularization strategy for treating multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). However, its safety and feasibility remain controversial. Therefore, we introduced our experience with midterm follow-up of HCR in patients with MVCAD and compared it with conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).Patients with MVCAD undergoing one-stop HCR at Beijing Chaoyang Hospital between March 2018 and December 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. These patients were matched in a 1:2 ratio to patients treated with off-pump CABG at the same period via a propensity score analysis with the nearest neighbor matching algorithm.In the adjusted analysis, no significant difference was found in the rate of perioperative myocardial infarction, stroke, death, prolonged ventilation, reoperation for bleeding, and renal failure between the HCR group and the CABG group. No in-hospital repeated revascularization occurred in either group. HCR was associated with lower blood transfusion rate (HCR 11.0% versus CABG 22.8%; P = 0.006) and shorter postoperative length of stay (> 10 days: 31.5% versus 81.0%; P < 0.001) compared with CABG. After the median 21-month follow-up, no significant difference was found in the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), death, myocardial infarction, repeated revascularization, and stroke rate. Besides, the freedom-from MACCE survival rate was similar between the two groups.One-stop HCR seemed to be a safe and feasible revascularization strategy in patients with MVCAD, with faster recovery and similar outcomes when compared with off-pump CABG.

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.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

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.

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.

What does complete revascularization mean in 2021? - Definitions, implications, and biases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary revascularization is known to be an excellent treatment for coronary artery disease. However, whether incomplete myocardial revascularization compromises long-term outcomes, as compared to complete revascularization (CR), remains contentious. Herein, we review the concept of and evidence on CR/incomplete revascularization (ICR) and discuss future perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

When possible, achieving CR in coronary artery bypass grafting is desirable; nonetheless, ICR is also a reasonable option to balance the therapeutic benefits against the risks.

SUMMARY

Although angiography-based assessment currently remains the standard of care, fractional flow reserve guidance may reduce the number of lesions requiring revascularization, which may be helpful for an appropriate surgical revascularization strategy. In particular, utilizing this approach may refine hybrid revascularization procedures, especially among high-risk patients.

Predictive value of ACEF II score in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease undergoing one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization

Background

We aimed to investigate the predictive value of recently updated ACEF II score on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) undergoing one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR).

Methods

Patients with MVCAD undergoing one-stop HCR were retrospectively recruited from March 2018 to September 2020. Several prediction risk models, including ACEF II score, were calculated for each patient. Kaplan-Meier curve was used to evaluate freedom from cardiac death and MACCE survival rates. Differences of prediction performance among risk scores for predicting MACCE were compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Results

According to the ACEF II score, a total of 120 patients undergoing one-stop HCR were assigned to low-score group (80 cases) and high-score group (40 cases). During the median follow-up time of 18 months, the incidence of MACCE in the low-score group and high-score group were 8.8 % and 37.5 %, respectively (p < 0.001); and the cardiac death rate of the two were 2.5% and 12.5%, respectively (p < 0.05). Moreover, the cumulative freedom from cardiac death (97.5% vs. 86.8, p < 0.05) and MACCE (75.2% vs. 52.8%, p < 0.001) survival rates in the high-score group were significantly lower than in the low-score group. According to the Cox proportional hazards regression, the ACEF II score was an independent prognostic indicator for MACCE with hazards ratio (HR) 2.24, p = 0.003. The ROC curve analysis indicated that the areas under the curve (AUC) of MACCE from the ACEF II score was 0.740 (p < 0.001), while the AUC of MACCE from the SYNTAX score II CABG was 0.621 (p = 0.070) and the AUC from the EuroSCORE II was 0.703 (p < 0.001). Thus, the accurate predictive value of ACEF II score was similar to the EuroSCORE II but much higher than the SYNTAX score II CABG.

Conclusions

The updated ACEF II score is a more convenient and validated prediction tool for MACCE in patients with MVCAD undergoing one-stop HCR comparing to other risk models.

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.

Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass in High-Risk Patients with Multivessel Disease

BACKGROUND

 High-risk patients with multivessel disease (MVD) including a complex stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary may not be ideal candidates for guideline compliant therapy by coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) regarding invasiveness and perioperative complications. However, they may benefit from minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting and hybrid revascularization (HCR).

METHODS

 A logistic European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation score (logES) >10% defined high risk. In high-risk patients with MVD undergoing MIDCAB or HCR, the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) after 30 days and during midterm follow-up was evaluated.

RESULTS

 Out of 1,250 patients undergoing MIDCAB at our institution between 1998 and 2015, 78 patients (logES: 18.5%; age, 76.7 ± 8.6 years) met the inclusion criteria. During the first 30 days, mortality and rate of MACCE were 9.0%; early mortality was two-fold overestimated by logES. Complete revascularization as scheduled was finally achieved in 64 patients (82.1%). Median follow-up time reached 3.4 (1.2-6.5) years with a median survival time of 4.7 years. Survival after 1, 3, and 5 years was 77, 62, and 48%.

CONCLUSION

 In high-risk patients with MVD, MIDCAB is associated with acceptable early outcome which is better than predicted by logES. Taking the high-risk profile into consideration, midterm follow-up showed satisfying results, although scheduled HCR was not realized in a relevant proportion. In selected cases of MVD, MIDCAB presents an acceptable alternative for high-risk patients.

Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularisation Surgery: A Focused Review of the Available Literature

Minimally invasive coronary revascularisation was originally developed in the mid 1990s as minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting is a less invasive approach compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to address targets in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD). Since then, MIDCAB has evolved with the adoption of a robotic platform and the possibility to perform multivessel bypass procedures. Minimally invasive coronary revascularisation surgery also allows for a combination between the benefits of CABG and percutaneous coronary interventions for non-LAD lesions – a hybrid approach. Hybrid coronary revascularisation results in fewer blood transfusions, shorter hospital stay, decreased ventilation times and patients return to work sooner when compared to conventional CABG. This article reviews the available literature, describes standard approaches and considers topics, such as limited access procedures, indications and patient selection, diagnostics and imaging, techniques, anastomotic devices, hybrid coronary revascularisation and outcome analysis.

Prospective multicenter registry of hybrid coronary artery revascularization combined with non-saphenous vein graft surgical bypass and percutaneous coronary intervention using everolimus eluting metallic stents (PRIDE-METAL study)

The concept of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the advantages of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to improve the treatment of patients with complex multivessel disease. This study aimed to investigate a 1-year clinical follow-up of a prospective multicenter registry of HCR combined with non-saphenous vein graft surgical bypass and PCI using everolimus-eluting metallic stents (the PRIDE-METAL study). From June 2016 to June 2018, a total of 54 patients with multivessel coronary disease from six Japanese institutes were enrolled in this study. The primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization) at 1 year. Three patients declined before complete HCR, and two patients were lost by the 1-year follow-up. All-cause mortality at 30 days and at 1 year was 0% and 4.1%, respectively. The rates of myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, and MACE were 0% at 30 days, and 0%, 2.0%, 2.0%, and 8.2% at 1-year follow-up, respectively. No occlusion of arterial bypass graft at the 30-day follow-up was observed, and was observed in 1.7% at the 1-year follow-up. HCR was safe and feasible and associated with a low risk of MACE at the 1-year follow-up. Further validation in multicenter and randomized studies is needed.

Review of Contemporary Techniques for Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularization

Minimally invasive coronary revascularization techniques aim to avoid median sternotomy with its associated complications, while facilitating recovery and maintaining the benefits of surgical revascularization. The 3 most common procedures are minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting, totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass, and hybrid coronary revascularization. For a variety of reasons, including cost and technical difficulty, not many centers are routinely performing minimally invasive coronary revascularization. Nevertheless, many studies have assessed the safety and efficacy of each of these procedures in different clinical contexts. Thus far results have been promising, and with the evolution of procedural techniques, these approaches have the potential to redefine coronary revascularization in the future. This review highlights the current state of minimally invasive coronary revascularization techniques by exploring their benefits, identifying barriers to their adoption, and discussing future potential paradigms.

Hybrid coronary revascularization vs. percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive surgical approach to the left anterior descending (LAD) artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD diseased coronary arteries. It is associated with shorter hospital lengths of stay and recovery times than conventional coronary artery bypass surgery, but there is little information comparing it to isolated PCI for multivessel disease. Our objective is to compare long-term outcomes of HCR and PCI for patients with multivessel disease.

METHODS

This cohort study used data from New York's cardiac surgery and PCI registries in 2010-2016 to examine mortality and repeat revascularization rates for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who underwent HCR and PCI. Cox proportional hazards methods were used to reduce selection bias. Patients were followed for a median of four years.

RESULTS

There was a total of 335 HCR patients (1.2%) and 25,557 PCI patients (98.8%) after exclusions. There was no difference in 6-year risk adjusted survival between HCR and PCI patients (83.17% vs. 81.65%, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.90 (95% CI: 0.67-1.20). However, HCR patients were more likely to be free from repeat revascularization in the LAD artery (91.13% vs. 83.59%, aHR = 0.51 (95% CI: 0.34-0.77)).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease, HCR is rarely performed. There are no differences in mortality rates after four years, but HCR is associated with lower repeat revascularization rates in the LAD artery, presumably due to better longevity in left arterial mammary grafts.

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.

Minimally Invasive vs Open Coronary Surgery: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Cost and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Limited multi-institutional data evaluating minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) outcomes have raised concern for increased resource utilization compared with standard sternotomy. The purpose of this study was to assess short-term outcomes and resource utilization with MICS CABG in a propensity-matched regional cohort.

METHODS

Isolated CABG patients (2012-2019) were extracted from a regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Patients were stratified by MICS CABG vs open CABG via sternotomy, propensity-score matched 1:2 to balance baseline differences, and compared by univariate analysis.

RESULTS

Of 26,255 isolated coronary artery bypass graft patients, 139 MICS CABG and 278 open CABG patients were well balanced after matching. There was no difference in the operative mortality rate (2.2% open vs 0.7% MICS CABG, P = .383) or major morbidity (7.9% open vs 7.2% MICS CABG, P = .795). However, open CABG patients received more blood products (22.2% vs 12.2%, P = .013), and had longer intensive care unit (45 vs 30 hours, P = .049) as well as hospital lengths of stay (7 vs 6 days, P = .005). Finally, median hospital cost was significantly higher in the open CABG group ($35,011 vs $27,906, P < .001) compared with MICS CABG.

CONCLUSIONS

Open CABG via sternotomy and MICS CABG approaches are associated with similar, excellent perioperative outcomes. However, MICS CABG was associated with fewer transfusions, shorter length of stay, and ∼$7000 lower hospital cost, a superior resource utilization profile that improves patient care and lowers cost.

Techniques and approaches for revascularisation of left heart coronary diseases

Coronary artery disease and its associated clinical sequelae are a significant medical burden to clinicians and patients. Severe coronary artery disease presenting in the context of acute myocardial ischaemia, or stable plaques causing chronic symptoms despite best conservative and pharmacological intervention, are often amenable to further intervention such as coronary artery bypass grafting. This procedure has been extensively compared to newer and less invasive techniques, such as percutaneous coronary intervention, and other minimally invasive procedures such as robotic or endoscopic techniques. This review summarises the current evidence on revascularisation of the left coronary artery system, with particular emphasis on key clinical endpoints of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and repeat revascularisation.

Heart team 2.0: A decision tree for minimally invasive and hybrid myocardial revascularization

Recent years have seen an important shift in the target population for myocardial revascularization. Patients are increasingly presenting with more complex coronary artery disease (CAD), but also with multiple comorbidities and frailty. At the same time, minimally invasive strategies such as Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (MIDCAB) and Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (PCI) have been developed, which might be more appealing for this group of patients. As a result, the landscape of options for myocardial revascularization is evolving while adequate use of all resources is required to ensure optimal patient care. Heart Teams are confronted with the challenge of incorporating the new minimally invasive strategies into the decision process, yet current guidelines do not fully address this challenge. In this review, the current evidence regarding outcomes, indications, benefits, and risks of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB), MIDCAB, PCI, and hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) are discussed. Based on this evidence and on experiences from Heart Team discussions, a new decision tree is proposed that incorporates recent advances in minimally invasive revascularization strategies, thereby optimizing adequate delivery of care for each individual patient's needs. Introducing all important considerations in a logical way, this tool facilitates the decision-making process and might ensure appropriate use of resources and optimal care for individual patients.