Hybrid coronary revascularization versus percutaneous strategies in left main stenosis: a propensity match study

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.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is an emerging approach for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) which combines the excellent long-term outcomes of surgery with the early recovery and reduced short-term complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Here, we evaluated the effectiveness of HCR compared to PCI in patients with MVD.

METHODS

A systematic database search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL/CCTR was conducted by June 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days and at latest follow-up between patients undergoing HCR versus PCI.

RESULTS

A total of 27,041 patients (HCR: 939 patients, PCI: 26,102 patients) were included from seven studies published between 2013 and 2021. At latest follow-up, HCR was associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.80, p = 0.010) and target vessel revascularization (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37-0.64, p < 0.001), while the difference for MACCE did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20-1.05, p = 0.061). No differences were observed in terms of 30-day outcomes, nor rates of mortality or stroke at latest follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

HCR might be a valid alternative to multivessel PCI, demonstrating a lower incidence of MI and TVR. Center experience, well-coordinated heart team discussions, and good patient selection likely remain essential to ensure optimal outcomes. Future comparative studies are required to define the optimal target population.

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.

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.

Hybrid coronary revascularization: are we there yet?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With advances in minimally invasive surgical and percutaneous coronary therapies, hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is well positioned to be an ideal strategy for revascularization in selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). The purpose of this review is to highlight recent outcomes and comparative effectiveness studies of HCR.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients undergoing HCR have comparable outcomes compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The major benefits compared with CABG appear to be related to short-term morbidity and resource utilization. Compared with PCI, HCR may decrease repeat revascularization rates by decreasing reintervention of the left anterior descending coronary artery.

SUMMARY

Although HCR is associated with a significant learning curve, specifically with minimally invasive CABG techniques, the early outcomes remain promising and should be considered as a viable option for revascularization in select patients with multivessel CAD.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of two-vessel coronary artery disease with proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis

Background

This study sought to compare clinical outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of two-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) including proximal LAD stenosis.

Methods

From January 2009 to December 2016, 52 patients of two-vessel CAD including proximal LAD stenosis underwent HCR at Rui Jin Hospital. Using propensity score methodology, these patients were matched with those in the OPCAB and PCI cohorts. The primary endpoint during follow-up was main adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

Results

The intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) and the hospital LOS were shorter in the HCR group than in the OPCAB group (ICU LOS: P<0.001; hospital LOS: P=0.027). The mean follow-up time was 59 months (interquartile range, 42 to 79 months). The 8-year freedom from MACCE of the HCR group was higher than that of the PCI group (P=0.008), but similar to that of the OPCAB group (P=0.893).

Conclusions

HCR provides favorable outcomes for selected patients with two-vessel CAD including proximal LAD stenosis.

What is the state of hybrid coronary revascularization in 2018?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive surgical bypass with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents, the goal being to leverage the strengths of each approach. Here we provide an update on HCR from the past 12 months.

RECENT FINDINGS

HCR represents a minority of surgical revascularization cases from a small number of highly experienced surgical centers. Most single-center observational series show no differences in major cardiovascular outcomes comparing HCR and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or HCR and PCI. The 5-year results of the first randomized study comparing HCR to CABG reported no difference in all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Comparing HCR with multivessel PCI, a large, prospective observational study reported no difference in risk-adjusted major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months. The Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Trial is an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to compare HCR versus PCI for patients with proximal left anterior descending disease or left main disease. This trial is currently recruiting patients.

SUMMARY

HCR is a potentially attractive alternative to both surgical revascularization and multivessel PCI when performed in experienced centers for highly selected patients. The results of a large, multicenter, prospective trial will provide greater clarity on the clinical role and optimal coronary anatomy for this third revascularization option.