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

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive (3-cm anterolateral thoracotomy), sternal-sparing, off-pump left internal mammary artery-left anterior descending (LIMA-LAD) coronary artery anastomosis with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to non-LAD coronary arteries. We compared outcomes of HCR versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

Between October 8, 2003 and April 23, 2010, 147 patients with multivessel coronary disease were treated with HCR at a US academic center. These were matched 4:1 to 588 contemporaneous patients treated with multivessel OPCAB by sternotomy using an optimal matching algorithm with 8 preoperative variables: age, gender, ejection fraction, presence of diabetes, myocardial infarction (MI), number of diseased vessels, left main coronary artery disease, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM) score. In-hospital major adverse events (MACCE) and the need for repeated revascularization during follow-up were compared between groups. All-cause mortality was determined using the Social Security Death Index (SSDI).

RESULTS

Matching produced groups with similar coronary anatomy and statistically similar preoperative risk factors. The incidence of MACCE was similar between groups (3/147 HCR versus 12/588 OPCAB). During a median 3.2 years of follow up, the need for repeated revascularization was higher for HCR than for OPCAB (18/147 [12.2%] versus 22/588 [3.7%]; p < 0.001). The incidence of blood transfusion was higher for the OPCAB group. Estimated 5-year survival was similar between groups (OPCAB, 84.3% versus HCR, 86.8%; p = 0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid coronary revascularization is a minimally invasive treatment for multivessel CAD. Although repeated revascularization was greater with HCR, both in-hospital and midterm outcomes were comparable with those of traditional OPCAB. Further investigation into the comparative effectiveness of this alternative strategy is warranted.

Hybrid coronary revascularization: a review

The long-term benefits of a left internal mammary artery bypass graft compared to the left anterior descending artery have been well described. The use of drug-eluting stents has minimized the morbidity of revascularization. Hybrid coronary revascularization is the planned use of minimally invasive surgical techniques for left internal mammary artery-left anterior descending artery grafting and the use of percutaneous coronary intervention for nonleft anterior descending coronary artery target revascularization. The optimal timing and order of revascularization in hybrid coronary revascularization remains unclear.

Closed chest hybrid coronary revascularization for multivessel disease - current concepts and techniques from a two-center experience

Hybrid coronary revascularization combining minimally invasive coronary surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) allows sternal preserving treatment of multivessel coronary disease. The main principle of the technique includes placement of mammary artery graft to the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) and performance of PCI in non-LAD target vessels. This principle is based on increasing data showing equivalent results of PCI with coronary revascularization using saphenous vein grafts in selected patients. Providing that perioperative and long-term results are as good as the results of conventional surgical revascularization, this option seems to be quite appealing for patients and referring cardiologists. This concept has been designed to allow rapid rehabilitation and minimize periprocedural pain under concomitant preservation of the patient's body integrity. Robotically assisted endoscopic approaches for hybrid coronary revascularization set the pace for a closed-chest treatment of multivessel coronary disease. The time point of PCI, the use of different anticoagulation protocols as well as the stent selection are some of the variables, which affect outcome. We additionally report on the midterm results of 130 after-closed-chest hybrid-coronary procedures in two institutions. Hybrid procedures using robotic technology and PCI allow closed chest treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Single- and double-bypass grafts are feasible and simultaneous interventions can be performed. The overall safety of the procedure seems to be adequate and perioperative clinical results are satisfactory. Intermediate term survival and freedom from angina are excellent.

Evaluation of antiplatelet effects of a modified protocol by platelet aggregation in patients undergoing "one-stop" hybrid coronary revascularization

"One-stop" hybrid coronary revascularization has emerged to be a reliable and attractive alternative for selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, the optimal antiplatelet regimen of the one-stop hybrid procedure still remains controversial. We modified the antiplatelet protocol in order to reduce the risk of perioperative bleeding and maximally inhibit platelet activity. This study sought to investigate whether the inhibition of platelet activity by this modified antiplatelet protocol is comparable with the conventional protocol widely used and recommended in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Twenty three patients undergoing one-stop hybrid procedure and 20 patients undergoing conventional PCI were enrolled in this prospective study. The modified antiplatelet protocol included perioperative use of aspirin; clopidogrel was administered immediately before PCI with a 300 mg loading dose, followed by a maintenance dose of 75 mg/day for 12 months. Blood samples were obtained before the operation and 2 hours, day 1 and day 3 after operation. Platelet aggregation was induced with: 1) arachidonic acid (AA) (final concentration 0.5 mmol/L) to assess the efficacy of aspirin; 2) adenosine diphosphate (ADP) (final concentration 10 micromol/L) to assess the specific efficacy of clopidogrel. Platelet counts were statistically lower in the hybrid group than in the PCI control group (p = 0.0018) on day 1 after operation. AA-induced platelet aggregation increased significantly in comparison with the preoperative baseline values (p = 0.0079) and the PCI control group (p = 0.0023) on day 1 after operation. ADP-induced platelet aggregation gradually decreased in the hybrid group, and achieved similar platelet inhibition with the PCI group on 2 hours and day 1 after operation. No major adverse clinical events such as death, perioperative myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis or reoperation for bleeding occurred in both groups within 30 days after procedure. These results demonstrate that our modified antiplatelet therapy can sufficiently inhibit platelet activity similarly as the conventional protocol for PCI early after operation. Thus, this modified protocol, with continuous use of aspirin and intraoperative administration of loading dose clopidogrel, might be a safe and effective antiplatelet strategy for the one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization.

Hybrid options for treating cardiac disease

The options for treating heart disease have greatly expanded during the course of the last 2 1/2 decades with the advent of hybrid technology. The hybrid option for treating cardiac disease implies using the technology of both interventional cardiology and cardiac surgery to treat cardiac disease. This rapidly developing technology has given rise to new and creative techniques to treat cardiac disease involving coronary artery disease, coronary artery disease and cardiac valve disease, and atrial fibrillation. It has also led to the establishment of new procedural suites called hybrid operating rooms that facilitate the integration of technologies of interventional cardiology catheterization laboratories with those of cardiac surgery operating rooms. The development of hybrid options for treating cardiac disease has also greatly augmented teamwork and collaboration between interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons.

The New Era of Cardiac Surgery Hybrid Therapy for Cardiovascular Disease

Surgical therapy for cardiovascular disease carries excellent long-term outcomes but it is relatively invasive. With the development of new devices and techniques, modern cardiovascular surgery is trending toward less invasive approaches, especially for patients at high risk for traditional open heart surgery. A hybrid strategy combines traditional surgical treatments performed in the operating room with treatments traditionally available only in the catheterization laboratory with the goal of offering patients the best available therapy for any set of cardiovascular diseases. Examples of hybrid procedures include hybrid coronary artery bypass grafting, hybrid valve surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention, hybrid endocardial and epicardial atrial fibrillation procedures, and hybrid coronary artery bypass grafting/carotid artery stenting. This multi-disciplinary approach requires strong collaboration between cardiac surgeons, vascular surgeons, and interventional cardiologists to obtain optimal patient outcomes.

Perioperative outcomes in hybrid versus conventional surgical coronary artery revascularisation

A best evidence topic was written on perioperative outcomes in hybrid coronary revascularisation according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'In patients with stable multivessel coronary artery disease, does the use of hybrid coronary revascularisation compared to conventional and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality?' Six hundred and twenty-three papers were found in the literature search. From these results, six comparative studies and one review paper appeared to be relevant. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant results and weaknesses of these papers were compiled and tabulated. Critical appraisal ruled out three of the six comparative studies identified by the search. Therefore, the following papers constituted best evidence. de Cannière et al. reported a non-randomised retrospective comparison of staged hybrid revascularisation with conventional CABG, showing an association with shorter intensive care unit and total hospital stays, as well as shorter time to return to work. Kon et al. reported a non-randomised retrospective comparison of simultaneous hybrid revascularisation with off-pump CABG, showing that fewer blood transfusions were required in addition to shorter intensive care and hospital stays. Vassiliades et al. reported a non-randomised retrospective comparison of staged hybrid revascularisation with off-pump CABG, which failed to show a difference between 30-day major adverse cardiac events in the two patient groups. DeRose reviewed 13 published series of hybrid revascularisation cases, concluding that experienced centres should consider hybrid revascularisation as an appropriate alternative to conventional CABG for selected patients. In summary, these papers provide limited evidence of improved perioperative outcomes in both staged and simultaneous hybrid revascularisation compared to CABG. Weaknesses of the comparative studies include the lack of mid-term and long-term follow-up and the difficulty of generalising results from specialist units to general cardiac surgical practice. A large randomised control trial comparing hybrid revascularisation and coronary artery bypass with mid-term follow-up will be required to establish the clinical effectiveness of this procedure.

Current state of integrated "hybrid" coronary revascularization

The long-term benefits of a left internal mammary artery bypass graft to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) have been well described. As the patient population with multivessel coronary artery disease has grown older with greater comorbidities, less invasive approaches to revascularization have been explored. The use of drug-eluting stents has minimized the morbidity of revascularization but has failed to match the durability of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is the planned use of minimally invasive surgical techniques for left internal mammary artery-LAD grafting and the use of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for non-LAD target revascularization. The optimal timing and order of revascularization in HCR remains unclear. Novel operating suites with surgical and fluoroscopic capabilities have begun to support the performance of simultaneous minimally invasive CABG and PCI. The role of HCR compared to both PCI and conventional CABG awaits the results of ongoing randomized clinical trials.

Establishing the case for minimally invasive, robotic-assisted CABG in the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease

The purpose of this review is to outline the most common objections about robotic coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), often expressed by cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, and administrators who have little direct knowledge of the procedure. The summarized objections include the high intraoperative costs of robotic versus traditional CABG, a prolonged and difficult learning curve for members of the surgical team, and concerns about compromising graft patency with this technique. Arguments for continued procedure development in robotically assisted CABG are provided.

Comparison of economic and patient outcomes with minimally invasive versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting techniques

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (miniCABG) decreases in-hospital morbidity versus traditional sternotomy CABG. We performed a prospective cohort study (NCT00481806) to assess the impact of miniCABG on costs and metrics that influence quality of life after hospital discharge.

METHODS

One hundred consecutive miniCABG cases performed using internal mammary artery (IMA) grafting +/- coronary stenting were compared with a matched group of 100 sternotomy CABG patients using IMA and saphenous veins, both treating equivalent number of target coronaries (2.7 vs. 2.9), off-pump. We compared perioperative costs, time to return to work/normal activity, and risk of major adverse cardiac/cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 1 year: myocardial infarction (elevated troponin or EKG changes), target vessel occlusion (CT angiography at 1 year), stroke, or death.

RESULTS

For miniCABG, robotic instruments and stents increased intraoperative costs; postoperative costs were decreased from significantly less intubation time (4.80 +/- 6.35 vs. 12.24 +/- 6.24 hours), hospital stay (3.77 +/- 1.51 vs. 6.38 +/- 2.23 days), and transfusion (0.16 +/- 0.37 vs. 1.37 +/- 1.35 U) leading to no significant differences in total costs. Undergoing miniCABG independently predicted earlier return to work after adjusting for confounders (t = -2.15; P = 0.04), whereas sternotomy CABG increased MACCE (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.4-7.6), largely from lower target-vessel patency.

CONCLUSIONS

MiniCABG shortens patient recovery time, minimizes MACCE risk at 1 year, and showed superior quality and outcome metrics versus standard-of-care CABG. These findings occurred without increasing costs and with superior target vessel graft patency.

Hybrid coronary artery bypass grafting

Owing to the high prevalence of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, treatment has proceeded along three separate paths: medical, surgical, and percutaneous intervention. Medical treatment is now routinely combined with both surgical treatment and percutaneous methods; however, the surgical and percutaneous routes are often viewed as in competition. Hybrid coronary revascularization, also called robotic assisted integrated coronary revascularization (RAICER), is a way of combining these two approaches. Whether any hybrid procedure will prove beneficial to patients remains unproven; however, RAICER has promise for reducing short-term complications while providing excellent and enduring treatment for coronary artery disease. Much work remains to be done on the benefits of hybrid revascularization in comparison with conventional bypass surgery or percutaneous coronary procedures.