Simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization reduces postoperative morbidity compared with results from conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The concept of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-left anterior descending (LAD) graft and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to non-LAD vessels. Multiple comparative studies have evaluated the safety and feasibility of HCR and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel coronary artery disease (MCAD). However, the sample size of each study was small, and evidences based on single-institutional experience. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term outcomes of HCR with those of CABG for MCAD.

METHOD

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, as well as conference proceedings, were searched for eligible studies published up to March 2014. We calculated summary odds ratios (OR) for primary endpoints (death, stroke; myocardial infarction (MI); target vessel revascularization (TVR); major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs)) and secondary endpoints (atrial fibrillation (AF); renal failure; length of stay in the intensive care unit (LoS in ICU); length of stay in hospital (LoS in hospital); red blood cell (RBC) transfusion). Data from 6176 participants were derived from ten cohort studies.

RESULTS

HCR was non-inferior to CABG in terms of MACCEs during hospitalization (odds ratio (OR), 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-1.33)and at one-year follow-up(0.32, 0.05-1.89) , and no significant difference was found between HCR and CABG groups in in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcomes of death, MI, stroke, the prevalence of AF and renal failure, whereas HCR was associated with a lower requirement of RBC transfusion and shorter LoS in ICU and LoS in hospital than CABG (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.25, 95% CI, -1.62 to -0.88; -17.47, -31.01 to -3.93; -1.77, -3.07 to -0.46; respectively).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis indicates that HCR is feasible, safe and effective for the treatment of MCAD, with similar in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcome, significantly lower requirement of RBC transfusion, and faster recovery compared with CABG.

Feasibility and Early Safety of Single-Stage Hybrid Coronary Intervention and Valvular Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Hybrid percutaneous coronary intervention offers an alternative method of revascularization for high-risk surgical populations. We report the outcomes of a single-stage hybrid strategy in valvular cardiac surgery and explore its effects on operative risk and bleeding.

METHODS

In a hybrid operating room, 26 patients underwent hybrid surgery consisting of femoral arterial access, then coronary stenting followed by valve surgery, with appropriate heparin dosing. Clopidogrel (300 mg) was given on anesthesia induction in nonreoperative cases, or at the time of cross clamping (after stenting) for reoperative cases.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 680 ± 277 days. The planned coronary stenting and surgery was successful in all patients. Major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events occurred in 1 patient, with no inhospital deaths observed. No vascular complication or stent thrombosis was observed with the described antiplatelet regimen. Outcomes were comparable to those of standard bypass valve replacement surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the feasibility and early safety of a single-stage hybrid strategy with coronary stenting followed by valvular surgery in patients at increased surgical risk. Hybrid procedures may lower operative risk by eliminating or reducing the need for bypass grafting.

Hybrid coronary revascularization: a systematic review

The hybrid approach to coronary revascularization is an evolving technique that is being used as an alternative to the traditional median sternotomy coronary artery bypass graft surgery. It combines a minimally invasive approach to bypass the left anterior descending coronary artery with a percutaneous approach to revascularize the other coronary arteries. A systematic review of the available literature was conducted to evaluate the benefits, and the short- and long-term outcomes of this procedure.

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.

Coronary artery bypass grafting: Part 2--optimizing outcomes and future prospects

Since first introduced in the mid-1960s, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has become the standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease. Surprisingly, the fundamental surgical technique itself did not change much over time. Nevertheless, outcomes after CABG have dramatically improved over the first 50 years. Randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to CABG have shown converging outcomes for select patient populations, providing more evidence for wider use of PCI. It is increasingly important to focus on the optimization of the short- and long-term outcomes of CABG and to reduce the level of invasiveness of this procedure. This review provides an overview on how new techniques and widespread consideration of evolving strategies have the potential to optimize outcomes after CABG. Such developments include off-pump CABG, clampless/anaortic CABG, minimally invasive CABG with or without extending to hybrid procedures, arterial revascularization, endoscopic vein harvesting, intraprocedural epiaortic scanning, graft flow assessment, and improved secondary prevention measures. In addition, this review represents a framework for future studies by summarizing the areas that need more rigorous clinical (randomized) evaluation.

Clinical outcomes after hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery: a meta-analysis of 1,190 patients

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) represents a minimally invasive revascularization strategy in which the durability of the internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft is combined with percutaneous coronary intervention to treat remaining lesions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes after HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive EMBASE and PUBMED search was performed for comparative studies evaluating in-hospital and 1-year death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

Six observational studies (1 case control, 5 propensity adjusted) comprising 1,190 patients were included; 366 (30.8%) patients underwent HCR (185 staged and 181 concurrent), and 824 (69.2%) were treated with CABG (786 off-pump, 38 on-pump). Drug-eluting stents were used in 328 (89.6%) patients undergoing HCR. Hybrid coronary revascularization was associated with lower in-hospital need for blood transfusions, shorter length of stay, and faster return to work. No significant differences were found for the composite of death, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization during hospitalization (odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.25-1.58, P = .33) and at 1-year follow-up (odds ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.20-1.24, P = .13). Comparisons of individual components showed no difference in all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, but higher repeat revascularization among patients treated with HCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid coronary revascularization is associated with lower morbidity and similar in-hospital and 1-year major adverse cerebrovascular or cardiac events rates, but greater requirement for repeat revascularization compared with CABG. Further exploration of this strategy with adequately powered randomized trials is warranted.

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

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines bypass grafting of the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-LAD vessels. HCR has been performed as an alternative to CABG or multi-vessel PCI in thousands of patients since the late 1990s. In this review article, we provide an overview on patient selection, procedural sequence and timing, use of surgical techniques and anti-platelet agents. Additionally, patient recovery, satisfaction, costs and clinical outcomes of individual studies after HCR are evaluated. Future directions are also discussed, including the need for adequately powered randomized trials.

Concurrent Coronary Artery and Valvular Heart Disease - Hybrid Treatment Strategies in 2013

Concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) and valvular heart disease is an increasingly common problem in the ageing population. Hybrid procedures combine surgical and transcatheter approaches to facilitate minimally invasive surgery or to transform a single high-risk open surgery into two less risky procedures. In ideal circumstances, this strategy may decrease the surgical risk in elderly, high-risk and reoperative surgical candidates, while improving patient comfort, convenience and cost-effectiveness. Hybrid procedures can be performed in a staged fashion or as a 'one-stop' procedure in a hybrid operating suite. Increasing evidence supports the safety and short-term efficacy of hybrid valve repair or replacement and coronary revascularisation procedures. Nevertheless, important questions remain, including the optimal timing of the individual procedures and the optimal antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. With ongoing advances in procedural techniques and anticoagulation strategies, as well as the accumulation of long-term outcomes data, hybrid approaches to concomitant CAD and valvular heart disease will likely become increasingly common.

Combining PCI and CABG: the role of hybrid revascularization

Hybrid coronary revascularization combines the benefits of both percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) by combining the benefits of the LIMA-to-LAD graft and drug eluting stent (DES) to non-LAD regions. Through this approach, a patient receives the long-term benefit of the LIMA graft and avoids the morbidity of a full sternotomy and saphenous vein grafts. Available data related to outcomes following hybrid revascularization is limited to small studies. In this review we seek to provide an overview of hybrid revascularization in the era of modern drug eluting stent technology, discuss appropriate patient selection, and comment on future trial design. Additionally, we review the recent literature pertaining to the hybrid approach.

Effect of one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization on postoperative renal function and bleeding: a comparison study with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery

OBJECTIVES

Although 1-stop hybrid coronary revascularization offers potential benefits for selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, the exposure to contrast dye and potent antiplatelet drugs could increase the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury and coagulopathy. The goal of the present study was to compare the measures of renal function, postoperative bleeding, and transfusion requirements in patients undergoing hybrid revascularization compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data from 141 consecutive patients who had undergone 1-stop hybrid coronary revascularization from June 2007 to January 2011. Propensity score matching with 141 off-pump CABG patients from our surgical database was performed for comparison. The change in renal function, cumulative chest tube drainage, and clinical outcome parameters were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Compared with off-pump CABG, patients undergoing hybrid revascularization had significantly less chest tube drainage at 12 hours after surgery (P = .04) and for the total amount during the postoperative period (P < .001) and required fewer blood transfusions (P = .001). The hybrid group had a higher incidence of acute kidney injury, but this did not reach statistical significance (25.2% vs 17.6%, P = .13). The hybrid group required less inotropic and vasoactive support, had fewer respiratory complications, required a shorter time of mechanical support, and had a decreased length of intensive care unit stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with off-pump CABG, 1-stop hybrid coronary revascularization was associated with benefits such as less postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements without significantly increasing the additional risk of acute kidney injury.

Hybrid coronary revascularization as a safe, feasible, and viable alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: what is the current evidence?

The “hybrid” approach to multivessel coronary artery disease combines surgical left internal thoracic artery (LITA) to left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention of the remaining lesions. Ideally, the LITA to LAD bypass graft is performed in a minimally invasive fashion. This review aims to clarify the place of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) in the current therapeutic armamentarium against multivessel coronary artery disease. Eighteen studies including 970 patients were included for analysis. The postoperative LITA patency varied between 93.0% and 100.0%. The mean overall survival rate in hybrid treated patients was 98.1%. Hybrid treated patients showed statistically significant shorter hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, and intubation time, less packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion requirements, and lower in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates compared with patients treated by on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This resulted in a significant reduction in costs for hybrid treated patients in the postoperative period. In studies completed to date, HCR appears to be a promising and cost-effective alternative for CABG in the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease in a selected patient population.

Impact of a Protocol Advocating Dexmedetomidine Over Propofol Sedation After Robotic-Assisted Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery on Duration of Mechanical Ventilation and Patient Safety

BACKGROUND

Controversy remains whether propofol or dexmedetomidine is the preferred sedative following cardiac surgery. Dexmedetomidine may offer advantages over propofol among patients undergoing robotic-assisted, minimally invasive, direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery given the rapidity with which this population is usually extubated after surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the impact of a surgery protocol advocating use of dexmedetomidine rather than propofol after MIDCAB surgery on discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and patient safety.

METHODS

The records on consecutive adults undergoing MIDCAB surgery who received postoperative sedation with propofol or dexmedetomidine at a 508-bed academic medical center were analyzed before and after implementation of a post-MIDCAB surgery protocol advocating dexmedetomidine use.

RESULTS

Seventy-three propofol patients were compared with 53 dexmedetomidine patients. The groups were similar, except propofol patients were older (p = 0.002) and more likely to have underlying heart failure that was either moderate or severe (New York Heart Association class III or IV) (p = 0.0001). Time (median [interquartile range]) to extubation (hours) was shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (5.0 [3.6–7.0] vs 9.8 [5.0–16.3]; p = 0.0001). A Cox proportional hazards model revealed that patient age (p = 0.001) and duration of surgery (p = 0.003) influenced time to extubation between the dexmedetomidine and propofol groups but the presence of moderate or severe heart failure (p = 0.438), the number of coronary vessels operated on (p = 0.130), use of an opioid (p = 0.791), or the total dose of morphine administered (p = 0.215) did not. During sedation administration, more propofol-treated patients experienced 1 or more episodes of hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≤80 mm Hg, 11.6% vs 0%; p = 0.02), tachycardia (heart rate ≥120 beats/min, 8.6% vs 0%; p = 0.04), and unarousability (Sedation Agitation Scale score ≤2, 30.0% vs 9.4%; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a protocol promoting dexmedetomidine, rather than propofol sedation, after MIDCAB surgery facilitates faster discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and is associated with greater hemodynamic stability and arousability.

Hybrid revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive hybrid revascularization (MIHR) by means of the left mammary artery on the left anterior descending artery [minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB)] combined with percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) stenting may be an alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting through sternotomy or multiple PCI. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the long-term outcomes of this strategy.

METHODS

Since May 1997 up to January 2011, 810 MIDCAB have been performed as isolated revascularization in 644 patients. Since 2004, MIDCAB, as a part of hybrid revascularization, was associated with PCI in 166 patients.

RESULTS

In the MIDCAB group, mean age was 64.6 ± 12.0, with 83.8% males. Two-vessel disease was 62.4%, three-vessel disease 37.6%. Overall mortality was 0.24%, perioperative acute myocardial infarction-1.6%, early reoperation-0.74%, reopening for bleeding-1.2%, case rate of haemotrasfusion-3.1%, with a mean hospital postoperative stay of 4 ± 2.5 days. Postoperative angiographic control prior to PCI and in symptomatic patients showed patent left internal mammary artery in 100% of cases. PCI was performed in 166 patients, 64.2% before MIDCAB and 35.8% after surgery (interval 2.2 ± 1.3 months). The mean follow-up in the MIDCAB group was 8.4 ± 3.2 years. In the MIHR group, at the mean follow-up of 4.5 ± 2.3 years, freedom from related cardiac death was 93% with freedom from cardiac reintervention of 83%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our 13-year experience with MIDCAB demonstrates that the operation is safe and associated with a very low incidence of early and late complications. The hybrid approach provided excellent long-term outcome in terms of freedom from cardiac death and reoperation. Accurate patient selection, as well the timing of the hybrid procedure, is mandatory to optimize surgical and PCI results.

Robotic totally endoscopic multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting: procedure development, challenges, results

Closed-chest totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB) is feasible using robotic technology. During the early phases, TECAB was restricted to single bypass grafts to the left anterior descending artery system. Because most patients referred for coronary artery bypass surgery have multivessel disease, development of endoscopic multiple bypass grafting is mandatory. Experimental work on multivessel TECAB was carried out in the early 2000s, and first clinical cases were already performed. With further technological development of operating robots, double, triple, and quadruple TECAB has become feasible both on the arrested heart and on the beating heart. To date, 161 cases of multivessel TECAB using the da Vinci telemanipulation systems are published in the literature. The main advances enabling multivessel TECAB were the availability of a robotic endostabilizer for beating heart procedures and increased surgeon skills using remote access heart-lung machine perfusion and endo-cardioplegia. Both internal mammary arteries can be harvested and both radial artery and vein graft can be used in multivessel TECAB. Y-grafting and sequential grafting are feasible. Multivessel endoscopic surgical revascularization can be combined with percutaneous coronary interventions in advanced hybrid coronary revascularization. Time requirements for multivessel TECAB are significant, and conversion rates to larger thoracic incisions are higher than those observed for single-vessel TECAB. Clinical short- and long-term outcomes, however, seem to meet the standards of open coronary bypass surgery through sternotomy. The main advantages of multivessel TECAB are a completely preserved sternum, use of double internal mammary artery even in risk groups, and a remarkably short recovery time.

Robotic total endoscopic double-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting--state of procedure development

OBJECTIVE

Robotic total endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB) has been under development for 10 years. With increasing experience and technological improvement, double-vessel TECAB has become feasible. The aim of the present study was to compare the current outcomes of single- and double-vessel TECAB.

METHODS

Between 2001 and 2011, 484 patients underwent TECAB by 4 surgeons at 2 institutions. The median patient age was 60 years (range, 31-90), and the median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation was 2 (range, 0-13). Single-vessel (n = 334) and double-vessel (n = 150) procedures were performed using the da Vinci, da Vinci S, and da Vinci Si robotic systems.

RESULTS

Compared with the single-vessel procedure, double-vessel TECAB required a longer operative time (median, 375 minutes; range, 168-795; vs median, 240; range, 112-605; P < .001) and had an increased conversion rate to a larger thoracic incision (31/150 [20.7%] vs 31/334 [9.3%]; P < .001). The median ventilation time was 10 hours (range, 0-288) for double-vessel versus 8 hours (range, 0-278) for single-vessel procedures (P = .006). The hospital stay was comparable, with 6 days (range, 2-27) for double-vessel TECAB and 6 days (range, 2-33) for single-vessel TECAB (P = .794). Perioperative mortality was 0.3% (1/334) with single-vessel TECAB and 2.0% (3/150) with double-vessel TECAB (P = .090). Freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebral events at 5 years was similar after double- and single-vessel TECAB (73.5% vs 83.1%, P = .150). The 5-year survival was 95.8% and 93.9% (P = .708).

CONCLUSIONS

Double-vessel TECAB appears feasible and reproducible. The operative times were longer and the conversion rates to a larger thoracic incision were greater than with single-vessel TECAB. Also, the postoperative ventilation time was longer. Other perioperative morbidity and mortality and the recovery time and long-term clinical outcomes, however, were comparable.

Clinical outcomes after hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass: a prospective evaluation

OBJECTIVE

: Hybrid coronary revascularization is offered as an alternative strategy for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). We present our experience and provide a comparative analysis to off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB).

METHODS

: Ninety-one patients with multivessel CAD underwent minimally invasive left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending grafting in combination with percutaneous coronary intervention of nonleft anterior descending targets (HYBRID). The primary end point of this study was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as death, stroke, and nonfatal myocardial infarction. MACCE in the HYBRID group were compared with 4175 contemporaneously performed OPCAB operations by logistic (30-day outcomes) and Cox proportional hazards (long-term survival) regression methods. Propensity scoring was used to adjust for potential selection bias.

RESULTS

: The 30-day MACCE (death/stroke/nonfatal myocardial infarction) rate was 1.1% for the HYBRID group (0%/0%/1.1%) and 3.0% for the OPCAB group (1.8%/1.1%/0.5%) (odds ratio = 0.47, P = 0.48). Angiographic left internal mammary artery evaluation was obtained in 95.6% of patients (87 of 91) revealing FitzGibbon A patency in 98.0% (96 of 98). The reintervention rate at 1 year for the HYBRID group was 5.5% (5 of 91) and was limited to repeat percutaneous coronary intervention. Three-year survival was statistically similar for the two groups (hazard ratio = 0.44, P = 0.18, see Kaplan-Meier figure).

CONCLUSIONS

: Hybrid coronary revascularization may be noninferior to OPCAB with respect to early MACCE and 3-year survival in the treatment of multivessel CAD.

Developing a new hybrid revascularization program: a road map for hospital managers and physician leaders

Hybrid coronary revascularization, which involves minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery using the left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending and percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents for the remaining diseased coronary vessels, is an innovative approach to decrease the morbidity of conventional surgery. Little information is available to guide hospital managers and physician leaders in implementing a hybrid revascularization program. In this article, we describe the people-process-technology issues that managers and leaders are likely to encounter as they develop a hybrid revascularization program in their practice.

Comparative study of same sitting hybrid coronary artery revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass in multivessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVE

We compared the outcomes of same sitting robotic-assisted hybrid coronary artery revascularization (HCR) with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) in similar patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND

HCR is a novel procedure in selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Although there are some data on staged HCR, the data on same sitting HCR are limited.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study comparing same sitting robotic-assisted HCR patients (n = 25) to a group of consecutive low to moderate risk OPCABG patients (n = 27) during the study period. HCR patients underwent robotic internal mammary artery takedown followed by OPCABG via minithoracotomy. After confirming graft patency, immediate percutaneous coronary intervention on the nonbypass arteries was performed. Comparative analyses were performed on in-hospital and 30 day outcomes.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were similar for both groups including the severity of CAD (Syntax score 33.5+/-8.2 vs. 34.9+/-8.2, P = 0.556). Overall MACE was similar between both groups; however, the HCR group showed improved hospital outcomes with lower need for postoperative transfusions (12% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), and shorter length of hospital stay (5.1+/-2.8 vs. 8.2+/-5.4 days, P < 0.01). Despite lower postoperative costs, the HCR group had higher overall hospital costs due to higher procedural costs ($33,984 +/-$4,806 vs. $27,816+/-$11,172, P < 0.0001). Propensity model analysis showed similar findings. The HCR group showed improved quality of life measures with shorter time to return to work (5.3+/-3.0 vs. 8.2+/- 4.6 weeks, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Same sitting HCR appears to be feasible and may offer superior outcomes to standard OPCABG, further studies are warranted.

Midterm Outcomes of Simultaneous Hybrid Coronary Artery Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

<p><b>Background:</b> The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and midterm outcomes of a simultaneous hybrid revascularization strategy for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD), compared with conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB).</p><p><b>Methods:</b> We compared the in-hospital and midterm outcomes of a simultaneous hybrid revascularization strategy (minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting of the left anterior descending coronary artery [LAD] and percutaneous intervention to non-LAD lesions) in 20 patients with LMCAD in an enhanced operating room. These patients were matched by propensity score to a group of 20 control patients who underwent standard OPCAB between September 2007 and December 2009.</p><p><b>Results:</b> All baseline clinical characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. All of the patients in the 2 groups underwent surgery uneventfully without conversion to on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Compared with OPCAB, the patients in the hybrid group had shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit (34.8 � 37.6 hours versus 50.7 � 34.5 hours, <i>P</i> = .01). Transfusion requirements were reduced in the hybrid patients compared with the OPCAB patients (5% versus 40%, <i>P</i> = .01). The 2 groups did not differ with respect to the occurrence of other important morbidities. During the mean (�SD) follow-up of 18.5 � 9.8 months, the group of patients who underwent the simultaneous hybrid procedure experienced an incidence of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events that was similar to that of the OPCAB control group (100% versus 90%, respectively; <i>P</i> = .31).</p><p><b>Conclusions:</b> The midterm follow-up indicated that the simultaneous hybrid revascularization procedure for LMCAD is feasible, safe, and effective. These promising early findings warrant further prospective investigations.</p>