Hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease

Advancing the Treatment Paradigm for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the longitudinal safety and efficacy of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) in a large cohort of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

From 2009 to 2020, 561 consecutive patients (median age 64.0 years, predicted risk of mortality 1.3% ± 1.8%, 403 with 2-vessel disease and 158 with 3-vessel disease) underwent a planned HCR procedure with a robot-assisted off-pump left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending (LIMA-LAD) coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) combined with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-LAD vessels. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for short-term and longer-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Operative mortality and stroke occurred in 4 (0.7%) and 5 patients (0.9%), respectively. Postoperative angiography revealed LIMA patency in 415 of 425 patients (98%). Median follow-up was 4.5 years and was 93% complete. Repeat revascularization occurred in 44 patients (8%) at a median of 2.7 years. Freedom from repeat revascularization and survival at 5 years was similar between patients with 2-vessel and 3-vessel disease (P = 0.73 and P = 0.19, respectively). Completely revascularized patients had 5-year survival of 91% versus 64% for incompletely revascularized patients (hazard ratio = 3.8, P < 0.001). Age (P = 0.03), renal failure (P < 0.001), and history of myocardial infarction (P = 0.01) were risk factors for late adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

HCR is a safe and effective minimally invasive alternative to conventional CABG or multivessel PCI with a low incidence of late repeat revascularization and mortality. HCR can be safely applied to carefully selected patients with either 2-vessel or 3-vessel CAD; however, incomplete revascularization may result in lower long-term survival.

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.

Cost Analysis of Robot-Assisted Versus On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Single-Center Surgical and 30-Day Outcomes Comparison

OBJECTIVE

Throughout Europe, the interest in implementing robot-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB) has been growing. However, concerns about additional costs have emerged concurrently. In this analysis, we aim to provide a comparison of the cumulative perioperative costs of RA-MIDCAB, on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and off-pump CABG (OPCAB).

METHODS

We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis comparing patients undergoing RA-MIDCAB with those undergoing CABG or OPCAB at our institution from January 2016 to December 2021. After matching, we analyzed the combined intraoperative surgical costs and 30-day postoperative costs. We first compared RA-MIDCAB costs to CABG and then to OPCAB separately. Violin plots illustrated the cost distribution among individual patients. Total cost uncertainty was estimated using 1,000 bootstrapping iterations.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine RA-MIDCAB patients were matched to 158 CABG patients, and 80 RA-MIDCAB patients were matched to 149 OPCAB patients. Considering both surgical and clinical outcomes, RA-MIDCAB yielded an average cost of €17,121 per patient (€16,781 to €33,294), CABG was €16,571 per patient (€16,664 to €41,860), and OPCAB was €15,463 per patient (€10,895 to €57,867). After bootstrap iterations, RA-MIDCAB was found to be €472 (2.8%) and €1,599 (10.3%) more expensive per patient than CABG and OPCAB, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In The Netherlands, the adoption of RA-MIDCAB did not show a significant economic impact on hospital resources. The additional robotic costs for the surgery were almost entirely offset by the cost savings during the postoperative hospital stay. However, these comparisons may differ when considering hybrid coronary revascularization with its additional percutaneous coronary intervention costs.

Comparing clinical outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization with open coronary artery bypass in patients with multi-vessels lesions

OBJECTIVES

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involves the use of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to treat the left anterior descending artery (LAD), and percutaneous coronary intervention to treat non-LAD vessels. We reported the results of a comparative analysis between HCR and off-pump CABG via sternotomy (OPCABG).

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collated from patients who underwent HCR or OPCABG for multivessel coronary artery disease between 2011 and 2022. Propensity score-based matching was performed to reduce the selection bias. The Comparisons of cardiac-related death, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and repeat revascularization were performed by Kaplan-Meier analysis or the Fine-Gray test.

RESULTS

After matching, the baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups with 91 patients per group. There was no significant difference in operative mortality rate (1.1% for HCR vs2.2% for OPCABG, p = 1.000). However, patients undergoing HCR required a significantly lower rate of blood product transfusions (p < .001) and experienced significantly fewer pulmonary complications than OPCABG patients (p < .001). At 10 years, the incidences of cardiac-related death, MACCE and repeat revascularization did not differ significantly between the two groups (9.5% vs11.5%, p = .277; 4.7% vs12.3%, p = .361; 1.2% vs2.5%, p = .914, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with multi-vessel lesions, HCR was comparable to OPCABG in long-term outcomes such as cardiac-related death, MACCE, and the durability of grafts. Additionally, HCR was better than OPCABG in perioperative outcomes. HCR may be an alternative therapy for OPCABG in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease.

Minimal invasive coronary surgery is not associated with increased mortality or morbidity during the period of learning curve

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive procedures for coronary revascularization have been performed for over 20 years; however, their technical complexity, steep learning curves and absence of training programs explain the weak acceptance of these techniques. The aim of this study is to describe the step-by-step learning process on how to establish a minimally invasive coronary artery revascularization program. The short-term outcomes of our first 30 patients were compared to our left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to left anterior descending (LAD) artery off pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) cohort as a quality control baseline.

METHODS

All patients who benefited from an endoscopic atraumatic coronary artery bypass (Endo-ACAB) in our hospital, from July 2018 to May 2020 (n = 30) were identified. Baseline demographics, peri, postoperative and laboratory data were extracted from each patient's medical records. These results were compared to our LIMA-LAD OPCAB cohort (n = 23).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients were planned for a single LIMA-LAD Endo-ACAB. The remaining two had a T-graft double Endo-ACAB. Ten patients had a hybrid revascularization with the culprit lesion being treated first. Three patients were converted to sternotomy because of a LIMA lesion during thoracoscopic harvesting. We accounted three major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Demographic, peri and postoperative data showed no significant differences between the Endo-ACAB and the OPCAB group.

CONCLUSION

Endo-ACAB is a technically demanding operation, however, it can safely be introduced in centers with no previous experience with no extra cost in terms of morbidity or mortality. Thoracoscopic LIMA harvesting is the most demanding surgical skill to acquire.

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.

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.

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization: Early Outcomes and Midterm Follow-Up in Patients Undergoing Single or Multivessel Robotic TECAB and PCI

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is the integration of sternal-sparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). It is traditionally performed with single-vessel bypass (left internal mammary artery [LIMA] to left anterior descending artery [LAD]) and PCI but can also be accomplished with multiple arterial grafts using bilateral IMA conduits. We sought to review our HCR experience over an 8-year period with robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB) and PCI.

METHODS

Of 694 patients undergoing beating-heart TECAB from August 2013 to June 2022, 306 patients were designated as intention-to-treat HCR candidates. Patients underwent PCI prior to, the same day as, or following TECAB, performed using single or bilateral IMA grafts. We retrospectively reviewed early and midterm outcomes up to 8 years in this cohort of patients.

RESULTS

The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 1.5% ± 2.5%. There were 44 patients (14%) who had ≥70% left main disease and 218 patients (71%) who had triple-vessel disease. A total of 193 patients (63%) underwent multivessel grafting (advanced HCR), with 83% bilateral IMA use. Mean operative time was 263 ± 80 min, and mean length of stay was 2.6 days. The mean number of vessels bypassed per patient was 1.7 ± 0.6. The mean number of vessels stented was 1.2 ± 0.5. Of the patients, 84% underwent TECAB first, 14% PCI first, and 2% same-day TECAB/PCI. Mortality was 0.6% (observed to expected ratio: 0.42). Early graft patency was 97% (328 of 339 grafts); LIMA-LAD patency was 98%. At 8-year follow-up (mean 37 ± 26 months), all-cause and cardiac-related mortality were 13% and 2.6%, respectively. Freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 92%.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with multivessel CAD, integrating robotic single and multivessel TECAB with PCI resulted in excellent early and midterm outcomes. In experienced hands, the robotic endoscopic approach allows the routine use of multiple arterial grafting during HCR.

Comparison of early outcomes associated with coronary artery bypass grafting for multi-vessel disease conducted using minimally invasive or conventional off-pump techniques: a propensity-matched study based on SYNTAX score

Background

This study was designed to compare early outcomes associated with coronary artery bypass grafting for multi-vessel disease conducted using either minimally invasive or conventional off-pump techniques.

Methods

From January 2017 through January 2021, 582 patients with multi-vessel lesion coronary artery disease underwent either minimally invasive cardiac surgery coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) or conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) treatment by our team at Anzhen Hospital. Patients in the MICS CABG group were propensity score-matched with those in the OPCABG at a 1:1 ratio (MICS CABG = 172; OPCABG = 172), using epidemiological data, preoperative clinical characteristics, and SYNTAX score as covariates. Perioperative outcomes and 6-month computed tomography angiography findings were compared between these groups.

Results

No significant differences between groups were observed with respect to 30-day postoperative mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke incidence. Surgical data indicated that the MICS CABG procedure was able to cover all three main arterial territories with a relatively low need for circulatory assistance. The MICS CABG procedure was associated with a longer operative duration, but was also associated with higher postoperative hemoglobin and activities of daily living index values as well as a shorter duration of postoperative hospitalization (P < 0.05). No differences in 6-month graft patency were observed between groups.

Conclusions

MICS CABG is a safe, less invasive alternative to OPCABG when performing complete revascularization provided patients are properly selected, yielding similar in-hospital outcomes and 6-month graft patency rates together with an earlier return of physical function.

Revascularization Strategies in Patients with Diabetes and Acute Coronary Syndromes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current evidence for coronary revascularization in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) in the setting of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

RECENT FINDINGS

In patients with DM and stable multivessel ischemic heart disease, coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has been observed to be superior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in long-term follow-up, leading to lower rates of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. In the ACS setting, PCI remains the most frequently performed procedure. In patients with an ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), primary PCI should be the revascularization method of choice, whenever feasible. Controversy still exists regarding when and how to deal with possible residual lesions. In the non-ST-segment-elevation (NSTE) ACS setting, although there are no data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), recent observational data and sub-analyses of randomized studies have suggested that CABG may be the preferred approach for patients with DM and multivessel coronary disease. There is a paucity of RCTs evaluating revascularization strategies (PCI and CABG) in patients with DM and ACS. CABG may be a viable strategy, leading to improved outcomes, especially following NSTE-ACS.

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.

Inverted U-shaped relationship between body mass index and multivessel lesions in Chinese patients with myocardial infarction: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of body mass index (BMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease in patients with myocardial infarction.

METHODS

This study was performed in 1566 patients with myocardial infarction in the Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University, China. Independent and dependent variables were BMI measured at baseline and multivessel coronary artery disease, respectively. The covariates examined in this study were age, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, creatinine, uric acid, bilirubin, cholesterol, triacylglycerol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, left ventricular ejection fraction, sex, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and smoking.

RESULTS

A nonlinear relationship was detected between BMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, and this was an inverted U-shaped curve and the cutoff point was 26.3 kg/m². The effect sizes and confidence intervals on the left and right sides of the inflection point were 1.10 (1.01-1.20) and 0.85 (0.74-0.97), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an obesity paradox for BMI > 26.3 kg/m². Future studies should examine the relationship between BMI and prognosis in patients with myocardial infarction, which may be important for improving the prognosis through control of BMI.

Advances in revascularization of the left coronary artery

Ischaemic heart disease is the most common cardiovascular disease worldwide, and it contributes to a significant source of morbidity and mortality internationally. It can be asymptomatic for many years and present suddenly with acute coronary syndrome or can be progressive with angina and eventual acute myocardial infarction. Diseases of the left coronary system can be drastic and fatal if not managed correctly. With ongoing increase in the practice of percutaneous intervention; patient demographics for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting surgery have more risk factors than before. Conventional bypass surgery has also evolved to include minimally invasive and hybrid techniques. Although some evidence supports each approach, controversies remain.

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.

Risk of perioperative coronary stent stenosis or occlusion in patients with previous percutaneous coronary intervention undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery

OBJECTIVES

There is an ongoing discussion about how to treat coronary stents during bypass surgery: Should patent stents be left alone and the stented vessels be ungrafted, or should every stented coronary artery receive a bypass graft? This study aims to determine the relevance of perioperative stent stenosis or occlusion on postoperative outcomes up to 3 years postoperatively.

METHODS

Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) (±concomitant procedures) with previous percutaneous coronary intervention from 4 centres were prospectively included in this observatory study between April 2015 and June 2017. A coronary angiography was conducted between the fifth and seventh postoperative days. The preoperative and postoperative angiograms were assessed in a core laboratory, assessing the patencies of coronary stents and bypass grafts. The core lab investigators were blinded to the patients' characteristics and perioperative course.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients were included in the study. In the postoperative coronary angiography, 265 bypass grafts and 189 coronary stents were examined angiographically. Ninety-seven percent of preoperatively patent stents remained patent. New coronary stent stenoses were observed in 5 patients (4.7%). All 5 patients were asymptomatic and managed conservatively. Bypass stenoses were observed in 12 patients (11%), of whom were managed conservatively, 4 underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and 1 underwent redo-CABG. Two years postoperatively, 97% of patients were alive. Patients with new stent stenosis tended to have a better survival compared with patients with bypass stenosis (100% vs 73%; P = 0.09) up to 3 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative coronary stent stenosis occurs rarely. It is safe to leave a patently stented coronary vessel without bypass grafting.