Robotically assisted hybrid coronary revascularization: does sequence of intervention matter?

A robotic-assisted hybrid coronary revascularization program: Establishment and early experience in the Middle East

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a technique that merges coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) approaches for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. The surgical component of the procedure is minimally invasive and can be done using robotic technology that avoids the need for sternotomy. Our objective is to study all patients who underwent robotic-assisted HCR (RHCR) to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the procedure during the establishment phase.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective chart review conducted at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre in Jeddah (KFSRC-J). The study focuses on patients who underwent RHCR between July 2018 to December 2020. The study was approved by the institutional review board #2020-103.

RESULTS

Robotic-assisted HCR was performed on 78 patients (mean age, 56 years (range, 43-72 years); 89.75% males) during the study phase. Left internal mammary artery grafting was used in all patients. There was no hospital mortality, and the mean hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay were 5.8 and 1.4 days, respectively. We found that 93.6% of the patients had no blood transfusion. There were no major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and perioperative MI recorded. There was a 3.8% rate of postoperative complications. The percentage of surgeries converted to conventional and re-exploration for bleeding were 1.2% and 2.6%, respectively. The average operation time was 164 min.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes on the safety and effectiveness of RHCR in treating patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Moreover, robotic-assisted hybrid coronary revascularization offers an alternative, functionally complete revascularization option to a selected group of patients with minimal surgical trauma, short hospital and ICU length of stay, quick recovery, and little to no blood transfusion requirement.

Clinical results after hybrid coronary revascularization with totally endoscopic coronary surgery

Background

The optimal revascularization strategy remains uncertain in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). The durability of the surgical grafts should be weighed against the decreased invasiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), a combination of PCI and surgery, could be a feasible alternative. This study aimed to investigate the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and all-cause mortality after both endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (Endo-CABG) and the HCR procedure.

Methods

In this single-center retrospective observational study, 347 consecutive patients have been subjected to an Endo-CABG procedure, of which 103 underwent HCR between January 2016 and January 2018. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to match 103 Endo-CABG alone patients to the 103 HCR patients. The Endo-CABG procedure was performed through 3 endoscopic ports (5 mm) in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th intercostal space and a utility port of 3 cm.

Results

In both the HCR and matched endo-CABG alone group, the 30-day mortality was acceptable (0% in the HCR group and 1.94% in the matched Endo-CABG alone group, p = 0.155). Additionally, the occurrence of MACCE after a mean follow-up of 1188 ± 538 days was similar in both groups (9.71% and 11.65% for the HCR and matched Endo-CABG alone group, respectively, p = 0.652). Still, the long-term all-cause mortality over this period was significantly higher in the matched Endo-CABG alone group (2.91% after the HCR procedure and 11.65% after matched Endo-CABG alone, p = 0.002).

Conclusion

HCR has some advantages over Endo-CABG alone regarding the all-cause mortality, cross-clamping time, intensive care unit, and hospital length of stay. Therefore, HCR may be a suitable alternative therapy for patients with MVCAD.

Recent Advances in Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease: Role of Science and Technology

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is one of the most common causes of death worldwide. In the last decade, significant advancements in CAD treatment have been made. The existing treatment is medical, surgical or a combination of both depending on the extent, severity and clinical presentation of CAD. The collaboration between different science disciplines such as biotechnology and tissue engineering has led to the development of novel therapeutic strategies such as stem cells, nanotechnology, robotic surgery and other advancements (3-D printing and drugs). These treatment modalities show promising effects in managing CAD and associated conditions. Research on stem cells focuses on studying the potential for cardiac regeneration, while nanotechnology research investigates nano-drug delivery and percutaneous coronary interventions including stent modifications and coatings. This article aims to provide an update on the literature (in vitro, translational, animal and clinical) related to these novel strategies and to elucidate the rationale behind their potential treatment of CAD. Through the extensive and continued efforts of researchers and clinicians worldwide, these novel strategies hold the promise to be effective alternatives to existing treatment modalities.

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

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

Current state and future direction of hybrid coronary revascularization

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Reviewing hybrid coronary revascularization: challenges, controversies and opportunities

Two main approaches to myocardial revascularization currently exist, coronary artery bypass and percutaneous coronary intervention. In patients with advanced coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass surgery is associated with improved long term outcomes while percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lower periprocedural complications. A new approach has emerged in the last decade that attempts to reap the benefits of bypass surgery and stenting while minimizing the shortcomings of each approach. This new approach, hybrid coronary revascularization, has shown encouraging early results. Minimally invasive techniques for bypass surgery have played a large part of bringing this approach into contemporary practice.

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.

Robotically assisted totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass surgery

Robotically assisted totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass surgery has emerged as a feasible and efficient alternative to conventional full sternotomy coronary artery bypass graft surgery in selected patients. This minimally invasive approach using the daVinci robotic system allows fine intrathoracic maneuvers and excellent view of the coronary arteries. Both on-pump and off-pump operations can be performed to treat single and multivessel disease. Hybrid approaches have the potential of offering complete revascularization with the "best of both worlds" from surgery (internal mammary artery anastomosis in less invasive fashion) and percutaneous coronary intervention (least invasive approach). In this article we review the indications, techniques, short and long term results, as well as current developments in totally endoscopic robotic coronary artery bypass operations.