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

Minimally Invasive CABG Is The Future: Pro

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains one of the most commonly performed operations worldwide. However, most CABG operations performed today are as invasive -apart from saphenous vein harvesting- as they were 50 years ago. While heart valve operations have become less invasive, CABG faces formidable challenges in doing so. Valve surgery requires a single surgical exposure to the valve intervened on, but less invasive CABG necessitates multiple surgical exposures to harvest internal thoracic artery conduits, source their inflow plus that of other grafts, and expose each coronary target to be grafted -including anterior, lateral, posterior, and inferior vessels. In this article, we rationalize why we believe that conventional CABG remains unduly invasive, associated with morbidity and prolonged recovery, and why less invasive CABG in its many forms, which we describe, represents a safe, practical, diffusible, and less invasive alternative to sternotomy CABG. Centers of excellence in coronary artery surgery should dedicate resources and expertise to developing high-quality, safe, durable, and advanced forms of lesser invasive CABG.

Maximizing Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery With Enhanced Recovery (ERAS)

We convened a group of cardiac surgeons, intensivists, and anesthesiologists with extensive experience in minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) and perioperative care to identify the essential elements of a MICS program and the relationship with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS). The MICS incision should minimize tissue invasion without compromising surgical goals. MICS also requires safe management of hemodynamics and preservation of cardiac function, which we have termed myocardial management. Finally, comprehensive perioperative care through an ERAS program should be provided to allow patients to achieve optimal recovery. Therefore, we propose that MICS requires 3 elements: (1) a less invasive surgical incision (non-full sternotomy), (2) optimized myocardial management, and (3) ERAS. We contend that the full benefit of MICS can be achieved only by also utilizing an ERAS platform.

Hybrid coronary revascularization: position paper of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions

Myocardial revascularization in coronary artery disease via percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery effectively relieves symptoms, significantly improves prognosis and quality of life when combined with guideline-directed medical therapy. Hybrid coronary revascularization is a promising alternative to percutaneous coronary intervention or CABG in selected patients and is defined as a planned and/or intended combination of consecutive CABG surgery using at least 1 internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending (LAD), and catheter-based coronary intervention to the non-LAD vessels for the treatment of multivessel disease. The main indications for hybrid coronary revascularization are (i) to achieve complete revascularization in patients who cannot undergo conventional CABG, (ii) to treat patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease with a non-LAD vessel as the culprit lesion that needs revascularization and (iii) in highly select patients with multivessel disease with complex LAD lesions and simple percutaneous coronary intervention targets for all other vessels. Hybrid coronary revascularization patients receive a left internal mammary artery graft to the LAD artery through a minimal incision along with percutaneous coronary intervention to the remaining diseased coronary vessels using latest generation drug-eluting stents. A collaborative environment with a dedicated heart team is the optimal platform to perform such interventions, which aim to improve the quality and outcome of myocardial revascularization. This position paper analyses the rationale of hybrid coronary revascularization and the currently available evidence on the various techniques and delves into the sequence of the interventions and pharmacological management during and after the procedure.

The Current State of Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive surgical approach with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Despite decades of use, widespread acceptance has been limited. In this review, we conduct a comparative assessment of HCR in relation to traditional coronary artery bypass graft surgery and multivessel PCI. Although large-scale randomized data are still lacking, numerous studies have demonstrated that HCR may offer benefits regarding resource utilization and short-term morbidity while delivering comparable mid- and long-term survival compared with traditional bypass surgery. Compared with PCI, HCR may offer similar periprocedural morbidity while mitigating the need for repeat revascularization by providing a surgical arterial bypass graft to the left anterior descending artery.

Current indications and surgical strategies for myocardial revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) accounts for more than 60% of congestive heart failure cases and is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Myocardial revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% aims to improve survival and quality of life and reduce complications associated with heart failure and coronary artery disease. The majority of randomized clinical trials have consistently excluded those patients, resulting in evidence primarily derived from observational studies.

MAIN BODY

We performed a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology in five stages: 1) formulating the research question; 2) locating relevant studies; 3) choosing studies; 4) organizing and extracting data; and 5) compiling, summarizing, and presenting the findings. This literature review covers primary studies and systematic reviews focusing on surgical revascularization strategies in adult patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or lower. Through an extensive search of Medline and the Cochrane Library, a systematic review was conducted to address three questions regarding myocardial revascularization in these patients. These questions outline the current knowledge on this topic, current surgical strategies (off-pump vs. on-pump), and graft options (including hybrid techniques) utilized for revascularization. Three independent reviewers (MAE, DP, and AM) applied the inclusion criteria to all the included studies, obtaining the full texts of the most relevant studies. The reviewers subsequently assessed these articles to make the final decision on their inclusion in the review. Out of the initial 385 references, 156 were chosen for a detailed review. After examining the full articles were examined, 134 were found suitable for scoping review.

CONCLUSION

The literature notes the scarcity of surgical revascularization in LVD patients in randomized studies, with observational data supporting coronary revascularization's benefits. ONCABG is recommended for multivessel disease in LVD with LVEF < 35%, while OPCAB is proposed for older, high-risk patients. Strategies like internal thoracic artery skeletonization harvesting and postoperative glycemic control mitigate risks with BITA in uncontrolled diabetes. Total arterial revascularization maximizes long-term survival, and hybrid revascularization offers advantages like shorter hospital stays and reduced costs for significant LAD lesions.

Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in single-vessel left anterior descending artery disease: mid-term propensity matching study

Introduction

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered to be the proven therapeutic choice for coronary artery disease. However, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents is increasingly used for extensive coronary artery disease with contradictory results. The aim of this study is to compare immediate- and mid-term results of CABG where skeletonized internal mammary artery (IMA) was used as in situ graft versus PCI with serolimus drug eluted stents (SES) in single-vessel left anterior descending artery (LAD) disease.

Methods

In 2014-2022, 938 patients treated for isolated LAD revascularization were included in this study. Among them, there were 346 patients with CABG-IMA and 592 patients with SES-PCI. CABG-IMA patients (n = 266) were compared with SES-PCI patients (n = 266) in propensity score-matched method.Primary outcome measures were identified as all-cause mortality at 30 days and 3 years after surgery, while secondary outcome measures were length of hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

Results

Increased incidence for post procedural MACCE after PCI was recorded (CABG = 1.2% vs. PCI = 5.3%; p < 0.05). There was no difference in immediate-term (30 days: CABG = 1.2% vs. PCI = 1.5%; p = ns) and mid-term (3 years: CABG = 3.7% vs. PCI = 4.5%; p = ns) mortality between the groups. Patient after SES-PCI had shorter length of hospital stay (CABG = 7.7 days vs. PCI = 3.8 days; p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The results of the study indicated that CABG-IMA performed at the time of myocardial revascularization in single-vessel LAD disease is better than SES-PCI. Our conclusion is independent of traditionally accepted risk factors incorporated in the Logistic EuroSCORE II (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) and SYNTAX score II (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery Score II) and is exclusively method related.

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.

Long-term Incidence of Myocardial Infarction and Death After CABG and PCI for Isolated Left Anterior Descending Artery Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

To compare the long-term incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) and death in patients randomized to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for treatment of isolated left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery disease.

Methods

We systematically identified all randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with stenting to CABG with a left internal mammary artery (LIMA) graft in patients with isolated LAD disease who had at least 4 years of follow-up. The primary outcome of interest was MI. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and target vessel revascularization (TVR).

Results

Four trials were included in the current analysis, with a total of 573 patients randomized to CABG with a LIMA (n = 285) vs PCI (n = 288) and followed for 4 to 10 years. At latest follow-up (weighted mean 8.3 years), there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of MI between CABG and PCI (relative risk [RR], 1.33; 95% CI, 0.62-2.83; P = .46), nor was there a statistically significant difference in mortality between the groups (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.70-1.65; P = .84). There was a significantly lower risk of TVR after CABG compared with PCI (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.46; P < .001).

Conclusions

The current meta-analysis suggests that there is insufficient evidence that CABG with a LIMA confers protection against MI or death compared to PCI with a stent for isolated LAD disease. CABG was, however, associated with reduced rates of TVR.

Simultaneous Hybrid Coronary Revascularization vs Conventional Strategies for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A 10-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Although evidence is sufficient to confirm that hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is safe and effective in the short term, its value in the long run is debatable.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the long-term outcomes of HCR with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel disease.

METHODS

Three groups of patients, 540 each, receiving HCR, CABG, or PCI between June 2007 to September 2018, were matched using propensity score matching. Patients were stratified by EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) II (low ≤0.9; 0.9 < medium <1.5; high ≥1.5) and SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score (low ≤22; 22 < medium <33; high ≥33). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) scores were compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

In terms of MACCE and SAQ, HCR performed similarly to off-pump CABG but significantly outperformed PCI (P < 0.001). In the low-to-medium EuroSCORE II and medium-to-high SYNTAX score tertiles, MACCE rates in the HCR group were significantly lower than those in the PCI (EuroSCORE II: low, 30.7% vs 41.2%; P = 0.006; medium, 31.3% vs 41.7%; P = 0.013; SYNTAX score: medium, 27.6% vs 41.2%; P = 0.018; high, 32.4% vs 52.7%; P = 0.011) but were similar to those in the CABG group. In the high EuroSCORE II stratum, HCR had a lower MACCE rate than CABG (31.9% vs 47.0%; P = 0.041) and PCI (31.9% vs 53.7%; P = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional strategies, HCR provided satisfactory long-term outcomes in MACCE and functional status for multivessel disease.

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD): A meta-analysis of 14 studies comprising 4226 patients

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with traditional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD).

BACKGROUND

HCR has emerged as an alternative to CABG in patients with MVCAD. Through minimally invasive surgical techniques, HCR carries the potential for faster recovery postoperatively, fewer complications, and lower utilization of resources.

METHODS

Systematic search of electronic databases was conducted up to December 2021 and studies comparing HCR with CABG in the treatment of MVCAD were included in this meta-analysis. Primary outcomes of interest were incidence of 5-year mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (12 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials) comprising 4226 patients were included. The rates of 5-year mortality (odds ratios [OR]: 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.62; I²  = 83.0%) and long-term MACCE (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.47-2.01; I²  = 74.7%) were comparable between HCR and CABG groups. HCR was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of perioperative blood transfusion (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.25-0.51; I²  = 55.9%), shorter mean hospital stay (weighted mean difference: -2.04; 95% CI: -2.60 to -1.47; I²  = 54%), and risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.23-0.88; p = 0.02). CABG demonstrated a lower likelihood of requiring long-term repeat revascularization (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.03-2.20; I²  = 18%) over a follow-up duration of 29.14 ± 21.75 months.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that HCR is feasible and safe for the treatment of MVCAD. However, benefits of HCR should be carefully weighed against the increased long-term risk of repeat-revascularization when selecting patients, and further studies evaluating differences in long-term mortality between HCR and CABG are required.

Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass: An Evolving Paradigm Over the Past 25 Years

OBJECTIVE

We have routinely utilized minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) for revascularization of the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery. We examined how this procedure has evolved.

METHODS

A retrospective review was undertaken of 2,283 consecutive patients who underwent MIDCAB between 1997 and 2021. Patients were divided into 3 groups: group A from 1997 to 2002 (n = 751, 32.9%), group B from 2003 to 2009 (n = 452, 19.8%), and group C from 2009 to 2021 (n = 1,080, 47.3%). Risk profiles and short-term outcomes were analyzed for the entire cohort and for 293 propensity-matched patients drawn from each group.

RESULTS

The left internal mammary artery was harvested open in group A but with robotic assistance in group C. Thirty-day mortality was higher in group A versus group C (12 deaths, 1.6% vs 5 deaths, 0.5%, P = 0.044); this difference was negated after propensity matching. Group A had more comorbidities than group C, including peripheral vascular disease (17.7% vs 10.0%, P < 0.001), congestive heart failure (39.6% vs 18.0%, P < 0.001), and a history of stroke (17.9% vs 10.0%, P < 0.001), although diabetes mellitus was more common in group C (51.4% vs 31.0%, P < 0.001). Stroke was greater in group A (1.2% vs 0.0% vs 0.2%, respectively, P = 0.004), as was the need for prolonged ventilation (3.6% vs 0.2% vs 0.9%, respectively, P < 0.001), before and after propensity matching.

CONCLUSIONS

MIDCAB patients had less comorbidities than in the past. Robot-assisted MIDCAB was associated with lower stroke risk.

Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are widely used in the treatment of coronary heart disease, but the best revascularization method for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) patients is still controversial. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), together with CABG and PCI, have been proved to be feasible methods, but the long-term effect of HCR is not as clear as CABG.

METHOD

By October 2020, we retrieved articles from PubMed, Web of science, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases. The main results are based on major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE).

RESULT

A total of 18 articles (3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 observational studies) were included in this meta-analysis. The outcomes of MACCE in the HCR group at perioperative, short-term (30 days to 1 year), medium-term (1 year to 5 years) and long-term (5 years and above) follow-up period were similar to those in the CABG group. The mortality rates of patients in perioperative, short-term and medium-term follow-up were similar to those in the CABG group, but lower than that in the CABG group at long-term follow-up (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.69, p = 0.002). The revascularization rate was higher in the HCR group during the perioperative period (OR = 3.50, 95% CI 2.07-5.94, p < 0.001), short-term (OR = 3.28, 95% CI 1.62-6.64, p < 0.001) and mid-term follow-up (OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.64-4.92, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our results reveal that HCR is a safe and therapeutically effective alternative in treatments for MVD patients. It has not only less short-term adverse effect, but also better long-term effect, especially in death.

One-Stop Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

One-stop hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a promising revascularization strategy for treating multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). However, its safety and feasibility remain controversial. Therefore, we introduced our experience with midterm follow-up of HCR in patients with MVCAD and compared it with conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).Patients with MVCAD undergoing one-stop HCR at Beijing Chaoyang Hospital between March 2018 and December 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. These patients were matched in a 1:2 ratio to patients treated with off-pump CABG at the same period via a propensity score analysis with the nearest neighbor matching algorithm.In the adjusted analysis, no significant difference was found in the rate of perioperative myocardial infarction, stroke, death, prolonged ventilation, reoperation for bleeding, and renal failure between the HCR group and the CABG group. No in-hospital repeated revascularization occurred in either group. HCR was associated with lower blood transfusion rate (HCR 11.0% versus CABG 22.8%; P = 0.006) and shorter postoperative length of stay (> 10 days: 31.5% versus 81.0%; P < 0.001) compared with CABG. After the median 21-month follow-up, no significant difference was found in the major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), death, myocardial infarction, repeated revascularization, and stroke rate. Besides, the freedom-from MACCE survival rate was similar between the two groups.One-stop HCR seemed to be a safe and feasible revascularization strategy in patients with MVCAD, with faster recovery and similar outcomes when compared with off-pump CABG.

Revascularization strategies in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Treatment modalities for multivessel disease have rapidly evolved, yet the preferred strategy remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared outcomes after on-pump (ONCAB), off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or hybrid coronary revascularization. A comprehensive search for observational studies and randomized controlled trials published by August 2020 was performed. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted for early (<30 days) and late (>12 months) outcomes. A total of 119 studies were included (n = 700 458 patients). The main analysis was confined to 31 randomized controlled trials (n = 24 932 patients). PCI was associated with lower early mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.79] and stroke (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.60) rates compared with ONCAB, whereas a reduced risk of early myocardial infarction was observed with OPCAB compared with ONCAB (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.83). Late target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were both increased with PCI compared with ONCAB, OPCAB and hybrid coronary revascularization (by 127-203% and 59-64%, respectively), and late major adverse cardiac events were increased in PCI compared with ONCAB and OPCAB (by 64% and 59%). However, PCI was associated with a significantly lower risk of late stroke compared with ONCAB (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.89). Sensitivity analyses (i) including observational studies and (ii) limiting to studies with recent cohorts confirmed the findings of the main analysis. Surgical approaches for revascularization remain superior to PCI in patients with multivessel disease. Hybrid coronary revascularization might be viable for some patients, although more evidence from randomized controlled trials is warranted.

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.

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.

Robotic hybrid coronary revascularization-A need for strategy specific data

Robotic totally endoscopic techniques to perform the left internal thoracic artery to left anterior descending graft, coupled with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), provide the least invasive option to achieve hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR). Shorter hospital stays and reduced need for blood transfusions have been consistently being reported by several studies along with similar long-term outcomes. Considerable variations exist in the definition of HCR which can be single or two-staged with surgical revascularization being carried out after PCI or vice versa. Variations also exist with respect to usage of cardiopulmonary bypass, surgical incisions, and the use of minimally invasive robotic techniques. The different strategies of HCR do not lead to similar outcomes and the findings of one strategy cannot be extrapolated to the entire group. Studies reporting different strategies of HCR should ideally provide more granular data when reporting outcomes.

Less invasive multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting: now is the time

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Less invasive multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting techniques have seen a progressive evolution over the last two decades. In their current state, they are easily reproduced and applicable to most patients requiring multivessel revascularization. The purpose of this review is to highlight their importance among a spectrum of evolving therapies and the accruing evidence in their favour.

RECENT FINDINGS

The first large dual center experience with minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) demonstrated the feasibility of performing multivessel surgical revascularization without the need for sternotomy or cardiopulmonary bypass. Subsequent angiographic studies to assess graft patency showed excellent early results. Studies comparing MICS CABG to conventional CABG demonstrate faster recovery while reducing hospitalization and cost.

SUMMARY

Multivessel less invasive coronary artery bypass grafting is basically limited to two procedures, MICS CABG and robotically assisted totally endoscopic CABG (TECAB). MICS CABG has evolved as a procedure that preserves the safety and efficacy of conventional CABG while avoiding the associated morbidity. It is reproducible, versatile and holds promise as the procedure of choice for multivessel coronary revascularization in the future. TECAB is likely the pinnacle of minimally invasive coronary surgery, the growth of which is hindered by widespread acceptance and industry involvement.

Robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting: current knowledge and future perspectives

Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) and totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB) are the two existing strategies for robotic-assisted, surgical myocardial revascularization. In this review, we summarize the wide evidence available in the literature regarding the benefits of these two procedures, and detail the technical skills required to master robotic coronary surgery techniques.

Prospective multicenter registry of hybrid coronary artery revascularization combined with non-saphenous vein graft surgical bypass and percutaneous coronary intervention using everolimus eluting metallic stents (PRIDE-METAL study)

The concept of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the advantages of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to improve the treatment of patients with complex multivessel disease. This study aimed to investigate a 1-year clinical follow-up of a prospective multicenter registry of HCR combined with non-saphenous vein graft surgical bypass and PCI using everolimus-eluting metallic stents (the PRIDE-METAL study). From June 2016 to June 2018, a total of 54 patients with multivessel coronary disease from six Japanese institutes were enrolled in this study. The primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization) at 1 year. Three patients declined before complete HCR, and two patients were lost by the 1-year follow-up. All-cause mortality at 30 days and at 1 year was 0% and 4.1%, respectively. The rates of myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, and MACE were 0% at 30 days, and 0%, 2.0%, 2.0%, and 8.2% at 1-year follow-up, respectively. No occlusion of arterial bypass graft at the 30-day follow-up was observed, and was observed in 1.7% at the 1-year follow-up. HCR was safe and feasible and associated with a low risk of MACE at the 1-year follow-up. Further validation in multicenter and randomized studies is needed.

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.

Hybrid coronary revascularization vs. percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive surgical approach to the left anterior descending (LAD) artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD diseased coronary arteries. It is associated with shorter hospital lengths of stay and recovery times than conventional coronary artery bypass surgery, but there is little information comparing it to isolated PCI for multivessel disease. Our objective is to compare long-term outcomes of HCR and PCI for patients with multivessel disease.

METHODS

This cohort study used data from New York's cardiac surgery and PCI registries in 2010-2016 to examine mortality and repeat revascularization rates for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who underwent HCR and PCI. Cox proportional hazards methods were used to reduce selection bias. Patients were followed for a median of four years.

RESULTS

There was a total of 335 HCR patients (1.2%) and 25,557 PCI patients (98.8%) after exclusions. There was no difference in 6-year risk adjusted survival between HCR and PCI patients (83.17% vs. 81.65%, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.90 (95% CI: 0.67-1.20). However, HCR patients were more likely to be free from repeat revascularization in the LAD artery (91.13% vs. 83.59%, aHR = 0.51 (95% CI: 0.34-0.77)).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease, HCR is rarely performed. There are no differences in mortality rates after four years, but HCR is associated with lower repeat revascularization rates in the LAD artery, presumably due to better longevity in left arterial mammary grafts.

Implementation of a beating heart system for training in off-pump and minimally invasive coronary artery bypass

Background

Several training devices have been developed to train anastomotic skills in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB). However, assessment of trainees’ improvement remains challenging. The goal of this study was to develop a new practical scoring chart and investigate its reliability and utility for anastomotic skills in OPCAB and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB).

Methods

A training device was used, which included a beating heart model installed in a dedicated box. A soft plastic tube was used as the left anterior descending artery, and a porcine ureter was used as the left internal mammary artery. Five cardiac surgery fellows (Fellows, > 5 year of surgical experience) and five residents or medical students (Residents, ≤ 5 year of surgical experience) were enrolled for this study. Before and after training, skills were evaluated using a scoring chart that took into account anastomotic time, leakage, shape, flow measurement, and self-estimation.

Results

Mean total score of all trainees was 15.4 ± 4.0 at pre-training and 18.5 ± 2.4 at post-training (P = 0.05). Before training, there was a significant difference in the total score between Fellows and Residents (18.6 ± 2.2 vs 12.2 ± 2.4 points, P = 0.002), which disappeared after training (19.4 ± 2.5 vs 17.6 ± 2.2 points, P = 0.262). Residents benefitted from training with improvements in their time, total score, score for time, score for flow and subtraction score; however, these effects were not seen in Fellows. The most evident training effect was improvement of self-estimation, which was also seen in Fellows.

Conclusions

Residents were most likely to derive benefit from these training models with regard to both efficiency and quality. Training models seem to have an important role in making surgeons feel more comfortable with the procedure.

Revascularization for Isolated Proximal Left Anterior Descending Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Most studies of patients with isolated proximal left anterior descending (PLAD) coronary artery disease do not include all 3 procedural options: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, or minimally invasive CABG.

METHODS

New York's cardiac registries were used to identify patients who underwent revascularization for isolated PLAD disease between January 1, 2010, and November 30, 2016, in New York State. After exclusions, 14,327 patients, of whom 13,115 received PCI, 1001 of whom underwent CABG surgery, and 211 of whom underwent minimally invasive CABG were monitored through the end of 2017 to compare outcomes. Registry data were matched to vital statistics data to obtain deaths occurring after discharge and matched to claims data to obtain subsequent admissions for myocardial infarction and stroke.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in mortality or in mortality/myocardial infarction/stroke after 7 years (with median follow-up times in excess of 4 years) among the 3 procedures after adjusting for differences in patient risk factors. However, conventional CABG surgery was associated with a lower subsequent revascularization rate than PCI (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.58) and minimally invasive CABG surgery (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with isolated PLAD disease undergoing any of 3 revascularization options (PCI, conventional CABG surgery, or minimally invasive CABG surgery), conventional CABG surgery was associated with lower subsequent revascularization rates, but there were no differences in mortality or mortality/myocardial infarction/stroke rates.

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Utilization and Comparative Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) treats multivessel coronary artery disease by combining a minimally invasive surgical approach to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left anterior descending diseased coronary arteries. The objective of this study is to compare HCR and conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery medium-term outcomes.

METHODS

Data from multivessel disease patients in New York's cardiac surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention registries in 2010 to 2016 were used to compare mortality and repeat revascularization rates for HCR and conventional CABG after using propensity matching to reduce selection bias.

RESULTS

There was a total of 303 HCR (0.80%) patients and 37 556 conventional CABG patients after exclusions. After propensity matching, the respective median follow-up times were 3.72 years and 3.76 years. There was no difference between HCR and conventional CABG in survival at 6 years (80.9% versus 85.8%%, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [0.90-2.31]), but HCR had higher mortality excluding deaths during the first year (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.88 [1.10-3.23]). Conventional CABG patients were more likely to be free from repeat revascularization at 6 years than HCR patients (88.2% versus 76.6%; hazard ratio, 2.22 [1.44-3.42]).

CONCLUSIONS

HCR is rarely performed for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. HCR and conventional CABG had no different 6-year mortality rates, but HCR had higher mortality after 1 year and higher rates of subsequent revascularization that were caused by both the need for repeat revascularization in the left anterior descending artery where minimally invasive CABG was performed, and in the coronary arteries where percutaneous coronary intervention was performed. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

Outcome of hybrid compared to conventional revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of 3-year clinical outcome of hybrid myocardial revascularization (HMR) compared to conventional revascularization strategies in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease involving the proximal left anterior descending artery. Design. Retrospective matched cohort study based on a prospective feasibility study including 103 elective patients undergoing staged HMR from October 2010 until February 2012. The Western Denmark Heart Registry was used to identify patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by matching on number of diseased vessels, age and comorbidity score. Primary endpoint was the composite rate of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 3-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints included individual MACCE components, acute kidney injury, and cardiovascular readmissions. Results. There was no difference between MACCE in the three groups (HMR 31.1%; CABG 20.4%; PCI 20.4%, p = .11). Estimates of repeat revascularization were significantly increased with HMR versus CABG. In the CABG group, fewest patients required cardiovascular readmissions though with the highest incidence of acute kidney injury. Conclusions. HMR was not superior with respect to MACCE compared with CABG and PCI. It may, however, represent a safe alternative to conventional revascularization treatment considering the specific procedure-associated morbidity.

Heart team 2.0: A decision tree for minimally invasive and hybrid myocardial revascularization

Recent years have seen an important shift in the target population for myocardial revascularization. Patients are increasingly presenting with more complex coronary artery disease (CAD), but also with multiple comorbidities and frailty. At the same time, minimally invasive strategies such as Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (MIDCAB) and Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (PCI) have been developed, which might be more appealing for this group of patients. As a result, the landscape of options for myocardial revascularization is evolving while adequate use of all resources is required to ensure optimal patient care. Heart Teams are confronted with the challenge of incorporating the new minimally invasive strategies into the decision process, yet current guidelines do not fully address this challenge. In this review, the current evidence regarding outcomes, indications, benefits, and risks of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB), MIDCAB, PCI, and hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) are discussed. Based on this evidence and on experiences from Heart Team discussions, a new decision tree is proposed that incorporates recent advances in minimally invasive revascularization strategies, thereby optimizing adequate delivery of care for each individual patient's needs. Introducing all important considerations in a logical way, this tool facilitates the decision-making process and might ensure appropriate use of resources and optimal care for individual patients.

Multivessel Arterial Revascularization via Left Anterior Thoracotomy

To present the technique and to evaluate the outcomes of the multivessel minimally invasive coronary revascularization through the left anterior thoracotomy. From July 2017 to March 2019 in 229 consecutive patients with isolated multivessel coronary artery disease we performed complete coronary revascularization through the left anterior minithoracotomy (6-8 cm skin incision). In 47 of them we performed multiarterial revascularization using left internal mammary artery and T-shunt with left radial artery or right internal mammary artery. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), Chitwood clamp and blood cardioplegia were used in all patients. Heart strings, encircling tapes and Chitwood clamp were used to reduce the distance from skin to coronary targets. Usual coronary instruments were used. The perioperative outcomes of multiarterial graft strategy group were compared with uniarterial graft strategy group. There were no mortality, no perioperative myocardial infarcts, and no conversion to sternotomy with either graft strategy groups. The mean number of distal anastomoses, CPB time, and total hospital stay were not different between the groups. Aortic cross-clamp time ((83.8 ± 17.4 (45;121) vs 67.8 ± 17.4 (35;146), P < 0.0001) and total operation time (283.5 ± 45 (205;495) vs 254.3 ± 48.6 (175;590), P = 0.0003) were longer in patients with multiarterial revascularization compared to uniarterial revascularization using left internal mammary artery and veins. Multivessel coronary bypass grafting using CPB and cardioplegia can be routinely performed minimally invasively through the left anterior thoracotomy. In selected patients multiarterial revascularization could be done with excellent procedural outcomes.

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Comparative Effectiveness Analysis With Long-Term Follow-up

Background Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involves the integration of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention to treat multivessel coronary artery disease. Our objective was to perform a comparative analysis with long-term follow-up between HCR and conventional off-pump CABG. Methods and Results We compared all double off-pump CABG (n=216) and HCR (n=147; robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct CABG of the left internal thoracic artery to the left anterior descending artery and percutaneous coronary intervention to one of the non-left anterior descending vessels) performed at a single institution between March 2004 and November 2015. To adjust for the selection bias of receiving either off-pump CABG or HCR, we performed a propensity score analysis using inverse-probability weighting. Both groups had similar results in terms of re-exploration for bleeding, perioperative myocardial infarction, stroke, blood transfusion, in-hospital mortality, and intensive care unit length of stay. HCR was associated with a higher in-hospital reintervention rate (CABG 0% versus HCR 3.4%; P=0.03), lower prolonged mechanical ventilation (>24 hours) rate (4% versus 0.7%; P=0.02), and shorter hospital length of stay (8.1±5.8  versus 4.5±2.1 days; P<0.001). After a median follow-up of 81 (48-113) months for the off-pump CABG and 96 (53-115) months for HCR, the HCR group of patients had a trend toward improved survival (85% versus 96%; P=0.054). Freedom from any form of revascularization was similar between the 2 groups (92% versus 91%; P=0.80). Freedom from angina was better in the HCR group (73% versus 90%; P<0.001). Conclusions HCR seems to provide, in selected patients, a shorter postoperative recovery, with similar excellent short- and long-term outcomes when compared with standard off-pump CABG.

Hybrid Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Review and Current Evidence

OBJECTIVE

The role of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), which utilizes the combination of minimally invasive surgical coronary artery bypass grafting of the left anterior descending artery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-left anterior descending vessels to treat multivessel coronary artery disease, is expanding. We set out to provide a review of this technology.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of all minimally invasive hybrid operations performed at our institution from September 2004 to December 2018. An effective analysis comparing patients undergoing HCR vs off-pump or on-pump surgical coronary artery revascularization was undertaken using an adjusted analysis with inverse-probability weighting based on the propensity score. Outcomes that were assessed include death, myocardial infarction, stroke, atrial fibrillation, renal failure, requirement of blood transfusion, conversion to open procedure (in the hybrid group), length of stay in intensive care unit, and total length of stay in hospital. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. An up-to-date literature review of HCR complements this study.

RESULTS

Since 2004 a total of 191 consecutive patients (61.4±11.1 years; 142 males and 49 females) underwent HCR (robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass graft of the left internal thoracic artery to the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) and PCI of a non-LAD vessel) in a single- or double-stage fashion. Successful HCR occurred in 183 of the 191 patients (8 patients required intraoperative conversion to conventional coronary bypass). From our comparative analysis and literature review we found no significant difference between HCR and coronary artery bypass grafting groups with respect to in-hospital and 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidences suggest that HCR is a feasible, safe, and effective coronary artery revascularization strategy in selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

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.

A review of hybrid coronary revascularization

Purpose

Hybrid coronary revascularization is an emerging treatment strategy for coronary artery disease. We will review the reasons for the development of this strategy, describe surgical techniques, and review outcomes. Finally, we will discuss the future of hybrid revascularization and explain why it will grow as a treatment modality.

Methods

For this review, we conducted an unstructured review of the literature for articles related to hybrid coronary revascularization, bypass surgery, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

Results

Hybrid coronary revascularization has been shown in large series to have excellent results. These include fast recovery time, low mortality and rates of complications, and excellent surgical graft patency. There may be increased need for revascularization over conventional bypass surgery.

Conclusions

The combination improved surgical techniques including a robotic surgery platform, as well as the ever-improving efficacy and durability of coronary stents have made hybrid coronary revascularization an attractive option for many patients. It offers a minimally invasive approach to surgery while avoiding the poor patency of saphenous vein grafts. In appropriately selected patients, this may be an ideal treatment strategy that minimizes risks and maximizes short- and long-term benefits.

Repeat Revascularization After Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Is It a Problem?

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICS CABG) via a small left thoracotomy is a novel technique for coronary revascularization that is increasingly used around the world. However, multivessel MICS CABG is difficult, and concerns about repeat revascularization (RR) have been raised. This longitudinal study describes the rates of RR among patients who have undergone MICS CABG and identifies targets for improvement.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was performed on the 306 MICS CABG patients operated on by a single surgeon from 2005 to 2015. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting was performed through a small left thoracotomy, using the in situ left internal mammary artery, ± a radial artery, and 1 to 3 saphenous veins anastomosed proximally to the aorta. Patients were followed annually. We examined the difference between the first half and second half of the series to ascertain the effects of a learning curve.

RESULTS

Eighty percent of the procedures were performed off-pump. The median number of grafts performed were 2, and the left anterior descending, diagonals, obtuse marginals, and posterior interventricular artery were the distal targets in 94%, 12%, 44%, and 26%, respectively. The graftability index (#grafts/#diseased vessels) was 0.93. Revascularization of targets smaller than 1.5 mm decreased from 69% to 50% (P = 0.002) between the series' first and second halves. Overall, RR was needed in 21 patients (6.9%) and was performed at a mean ± SD of 1.7 ± 1.6 years postoperatively. The culprit lesion was attributed to the index surgical procedure ("graft-associated") in 52%, to a stent stenosis or progression of native disease in 43%, and was unidentified in 5%. Patients with graft-associated RR had a lower graftability index at operation (0.73 vs 0.94) and more frequent involvement of the circumflex system (0.8 vs 0.3). The overall rate of RR at 3 years decreased from 11% in the first half to 2.6% in the second half (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The need for RR is part of the learning curve with MICS CABG, involves a graft in half of the cases, is more common in patients who had a lower graftability index at operation, and markedly improves with experience.

Hybrid Revascularization: A Review

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines surgical bypass with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed either during the same procedure or in a staged approach within 60 days. Coronary artery bypass grafting using the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) has shown excellent long-term patency with improved patient survival. It remains the gold standard treatment for the majority of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, saphenous vein grafts have poor long-term patency. Advances in stent technology have resulted in reduced rates of thrombosis and restenosis, making PCI a viable alternative to coronary surgery in selected patients. HCR is attractive as a less invasive method of coronary revascularization which preserves the benefits of the LIMA performed with less invasive surgical techniques with the efficacy of newer generation stents.