Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Comparing the Effectiveness of Open and Minimally Invasive Approaches in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is an essential operation for patients who have severe coronary artery disease (CAD). Both open and minimally invasive CABG methods are used to treat CAD. This in-depth review looks at the latest research on the effectiveness of open versus minimally invasive CABG. The goal is to develop evidence-based guidelines that will improve surgical outcomes. This systematic review used databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science for a full electronic search. We adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and registered the results in the PROSPERO. The search method used MeSH phrases and many different study types to find papers. After removing duplicate publications and conducting a screening process, we collaboratively evaluated the full texts to determine their inclusion. We then extracted data, including diagnosis, the total number of patients in the study, clinical recommendations from the studies, surgical complications, angina recurrence, hospital stay duration, and mortality rates. Many studies that investigate open and minimally invasive CABG methods have shown that the type of surgery can have a large effect on how well the patient recovers and how well the surgery works overall. While there are limited data on the possible advantages of minimally invasive CABG, a conclusive comparison with open CABG is still dubious. Additional clinical trials are required to examine a wider spectrum of patient results.

Clinical outcomes of different revascularization approaches for patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As surgical techniques continue to evolve, the optimal approach for revascularizing multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) remains a matter of ongoing debate. Accordingly, our objective was to compare and contrast various surgical techniques utilized in the management of multi-vessel CAD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials from inception to May 2022. Random-effects network meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome; target vessel revascularization (TVR), and secondary outcomes; mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, postoperative myocardial infarction, new-onset atrial fibrillation, stroke, new-onset dialysis, in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a stent, off-pump coronary bypass graft, on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (ONCABG), hybrid coronary revascularization, minimally-invasive coronary artery bypass, or robot-assisted coronary artery bypass (RCAB) surgeries.

RESULTS

A total of 8841 patients were included from 23 studies. The analysis showed that ONCABG had the highest freedom from TVR, with a mean (SD) absolute risk of 0.027 (0.029); although ONCABG was found to be superior to all other methods, it was only significantly better than first-generation stent PCI. While RCAB did not demonstrate significant superiority over other treatments, it showed a greater probability of preventing postoperative complications. Notably, no significant heterogeneity was calculated for any of the reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

ONCABG shows a better rank probability compared to all other techniques for preventing TVR, while RCAB offers greater freedom from most postoperative complications. However, given the absence of randomized controlled trials, these results should be interpreted with caution.

Less Invasive and Hybrid Surgical/Interventional Coronary Disease Management: The Future Is Now

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has evolved to become the criterion standard in elective revascularisation for coronary artery disease (CAD), particularly in patients with complex or multivessel CAD, left main involvement, diabetes mellitus, or left ventricular dysfunction. Despite the superiority of CABG in patients with the most advanced forms of CAD, a standard CABG operation, through a median sternotomy and with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass, carries well recognised challenges. In this article, we describe newer approaches, such as off-pump CABG, minimally invasive bypass grafting, robotic CABG, and hybrid coronary revascularisation, which we consider as necessary ways to minimise invasion, reduce recovery time, provide the benefits of arterial grafting to more patients, and offer alternatives to mitigate the adverse effects of conventional sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass.

A robotic-assisted hybrid coronary revascularization program: Establishment and early experience in the Middle East

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a technique that merges coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) approaches for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. The surgical component of the procedure is minimally invasive and can be done using robotic technology that avoids the need for sternotomy. Our objective is to study all patients who underwent robotic-assisted HCR (RHCR) to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the procedure during the establishment phase.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective chart review conducted at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre in Jeddah (KFSRC-J). The study focuses on patients who underwent RHCR between July 2018 to December 2020. The study was approved by the institutional review board #2020-103.

RESULTS

Robotic-assisted HCR was performed on 78 patients (mean age, 56 years (range, 43-72 years); 89.75% males) during the study phase. Left internal mammary artery grafting was used in all patients. There was no hospital mortality, and the mean hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay were 5.8 and 1.4 days, respectively. We found that 93.6% of the patients had no blood transfusion. There were no major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and perioperative MI recorded. There was a 3.8% rate of postoperative complications. The percentage of surgeries converted to conventional and re-exploration for bleeding were 1.2% and 2.6%, respectively. The average operation time was 164 min.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes on the safety and effectiveness of RHCR in treating patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Moreover, robotic-assisted hybrid coronary revascularization offers an alternative, functionally complete revascularization option to a selected group of patients with minimal surgical trauma, short hospital and ICU length of stay, quick recovery, and little to no blood transfusion requirement.

Hybrid coronary revascularization (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.

Robotic advanced hybrid coronary revascularization: Outcomes with two internal thoracic artery grafts and stents

Objective

Advanced hybrid coronary revascularization is the integration of sternal-sparing multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. We sought to review our advanced hybrid coronary revascularization experience over an 8.5-year period using robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass with bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts and percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods

From August 2013 to February 2022, 664 patients underwent robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass at our institution. Of the 293 patients who underwent totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass assigned to a hybrid revascularization strategy, 156 patients received bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts and are the subject of this review. Patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents before or after totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass. We reviewed early and midterm outcomes (up to 8 years) in this cohort of patients with intent-to-treat advanced hybrid coronary revascularization.

Results

The mean age of patients was 65 ± 10 years. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 1.26 ± 1.56. Triple-vessel disease occurred in 94% of patients, and 17% of patients had 70% or more left-main disease. The mean operative time was 311 ± 54 minutes, and the mean hospital length of stay was 2.7 ± 1.1 days. All patients had bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts; the total number of grafts was 334. Eight seven percentage of patients had totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass ×2, and 13% of patients had totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass ×3. One patient received totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass ×4. The mean number of grafts per patient was 2.14 ± 0.4, and the mean number of vessels stented was 1.23 ± 0.5. There were no conversions, perioperative stroke, or myocardial infarction. Early mortality occurred in 2 patients. Early graft patency was 98% (209/214 grafts); left internal thoracic artery to left anterior descending patency was 100% (66/66 grafts). At 8-year follow-up in 155 patients (mean 39 ± 26 months), all-cause and cardiac-related mortality were 11.6% and 3.9%, respectively. Freedom from major adverse cardiac/cerebrovascular events including repeat revascularization was 94%.

Conclusions

In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, integrating robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass with bilateral internal thoracic artery and percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in excellent early and midterm outcomes. Further studies are warranted.

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.

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.

One-Stop Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Background: Data on one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) are limited. This study aimed to compare the early and midterm outcomes of one-stop HCR with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

Methods: From April 2018 to May 2021, 752 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who underwent isolated one-stop HCR or OPCAB were retrospectively included in this analysis. After exclusion and propensity score matching, 151 patients who underwent HCR were matched with 151 patients who underwent OPCAB. The primary endpoints were midterm major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) after the procedure. The secondary endpoints were in-hospital complications and outcomes.

Results: The preprocedural characteristics were well balanced between the two groups after matching. The HCR group was associated with a lower rate of perioperative transfusion (23.8 vs. 53.0%, p < 0.001) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) (5.3 vs. 15.2%, p = 0.004), shorter time of mechanical ventilation (h) [15 (16, 17) vs. 17 (16, 20), p < 0.001], and shorter length of stay (LOS) in the hospital (days) [19 (16, 24) vs. 22 (18, 27), p = 0.001]. Cumulated MACCE rates were similar between the two groups (15.9 vs. 14.0%, p = 0.59) during a median follow-up of 20 months.

Conclusions: One-stop HCR is safe and efficacious with less invasiveness and faster postoperative recovery in selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up are warranted to confirm these findings.

Five-Year Outcomes After Hybrid Coronary Revascularization: A Single Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines both surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization procedures. It offers a minimally invasive strategy for multivessel coronary artery disease and combines the advantages of both. However, quantitative long-term patency and clinical outcomes remain understudied. The objective of this study was to assess clinical outcomes and graft and stent patency at 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

From January 2004 to January 2015, 120 patients were enrolled in this study. They underwent robotically assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting of left internal thoracic artery (LITA) to the left descending artery (LAD) and percutaneous coronary intervention of non-LAD vessels. Primary outcome was graft (LITA-LAD) patency determined at 5 years of follow-up, assessed by computed tomography angiography and rest and stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS-MIBI). Secondary outcomes were stent patency and major adverse major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Also, freedom from recurrence of angina was assessed.

RESULTS

At follow-up, 18 of 120 patients (15%) had died (in 5 patients the cause of death was cardiovascular). Among survivors, follow-up was achieved in 83 of 102 (81%). In 76 of 83 patients (92%) there was a patent LITA-LAD graft and in 75 of 83 (90%) a patent stent was demonstrated. MACCE occurred in 36 of 120 patients (30%). Freedom from recurrence of angina occurred in 92 of 120 patients (77%).

CONCLUSIONS

HCR is a safe and a promising procedure. It provides a minimally invasive approach and results in complete revascularization with good 5-year patency and clinical outcomes.

A Practical Approach to Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

Combined surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization, ie, hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) consists of surgical left internal mammary artery (LIMA) bypass to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and percutaneous revascularization of other diseased coronary arteries. Developed as a 1-stage procedure, HCR has not been widely adopted by the cardiovascular community. The recommended minimally invasive approach through a small left thoracotomy incision is technically demanding, and same-day percutaneous revascularization requires a hybrid operating room that is not available in most hospitals. In this review, we consider present HCR protocols, barriers to widespread adoption of HCR, and we give special attention to the surgical approach for the LIMA graft to the LAD and the timing of percutaneous revascularization. We conclude that grafting the LIMA to the LAD through a median sternotomy approach and delaying the percutaneous revascularization may facilitate the widespread use of HCR in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and a low to intermediate Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score.

In patients with multi-vessel coronary artery diseases, does hybrid revascularization provide similar outcomes to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: In [patients with multivessel coronary artery diseases (CAD)] is [hybrid revascularization (HCR)] equal to [coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)] in regard to [mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and target vessel revascularization (TVR)]? Three-hundred and fifty-five papers were found using the reported search, of which 8 represented the best evidence to answer the question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The studies included 4 observational studies, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 meta-analysis. The meta-analysis consisted of predominantly observational data with 1 randomized controlled trial and suggested non-significant differences in all major clinical outcomes. The observational studies generally cited benefit towards hybrid revascularization on the basis of equivalent major clinical outcomes rates compared to coronary artery bypass grafting, yet favourable in-hospital outcomes. One randomized controlled trial provided robust evidence of equivalent 5-year outcomes; however, the others were insufficiently powered for an effective comparison. There is a paucity of robustly designed studies to answer our clinical question effectively, given hybrid procedures are not routine in clinical practice. On the basis of mostly observational and small randomized cohorts with relatively short follow-up intervals, we conclude that current evidence suggests similar mid-term rates of major clinical outcomes after hybrid revascularization and coronary artery bypass grafting. However, without longer-term follow-up, the comparison of the two techniques, particularly relating to repeat revascularization, is still very much uncertain.

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.

Cardiac Surgery: Beyond Conventional Sternotomy With Cardiopulmonary Bypass

Minimally invasive cardiac surgery options, which originated with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve procedures, continue to evolve in order to address complex conditions, including those requiring mitral and tricuspid valve repair. Although these procedures are primarily indicated for high-risk patient populations, favorable patient outcomes have resulted in recommendations being expanded to include intermediate-risk groups. This article increases nursing-related knowledge of minimally invasive cardiac procedures, providing an overview of current minimally invasive cardiac surgeries and their associated risks and benefits.

Hybrid coronary revascularization: are we there yet?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Reasons for Conversion and Adverse Intraoperative Events in Robotically Enhanced Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Revascularization

OBJECTIVE

The transition from sternotomy access to minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with steep learning curves. This study reports the reasons for sternotomy conversions from robotically enhanced minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (RE-MIDCAB) and describes potential risk reduction strategies.

METHODS

The perioperative data of 759 RE-MIDCAB patients (mean age 65.9 ± 10 years, 25.5% female, 30.2% multivessel disease) operated between July 1, 2002 and November 30, 2018 were reviewed for the reasons of conversion and adverse intraoperative events. Hybrid revascularization was planned in 204 (26.9%) patients.

RESULTS

Sternotomy conversion occurred in 30 (4.0%) patients. Lung adhesions and unsuccessful single-lung ventilation prohibited safe RE-MIDCAB internal thoracic artery (ITA) harvesting in 11 (36.7%) and 1 (3.3%) patients, respectively. ITA dysfunction (n = 11, 36.7%) and inadequate target vessel visualization (n = 3, 10.0%) were among the anatomical reasons for conversions. Adverse intraoperative events included ventricle perforation (n = 1, 3.3%) and sustained ventricular arrhythmia (n = 1, 3.3%). The in-hospital mortality and mean length of hospitalization for sternotomy conversion were 3.3% (n = 1 of 30) and 13.4 ± 14.5 days, respectively. Perioperative morbidities included pneumonia (n = 4, 13.3%). Premorbid renal dysfunction predicted sternotomy conversion at the 5% level of significance.

CONCLUSIONS

RE-MIDCAB provides an attractive surgical platform for primary- or hybrid coronary artery procedures. The progressive increase in patient risk profiles, strict quality control, and focus on clinical governance require awareness of reasons that potentially contribute RE-MIDCAB to sternotomy conversion to ensure safe and sustainable programs.

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.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Coronary Artery Disease - Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Some studies comparing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have reported MIDCAB's superiority, but they did not investigate contemporary PCI with newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES). We compared clinical outcomes after MIDCAB with previously reported outcomes after PCI with second-generation DES.Methods and Results:We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients treated with MIDCAB. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes after MIDCAB were compared with those for left anterior descending artery disease treated via PCI. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and target vessel revascularization (TVR). A propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis was conducted to adjust for between-group differences in baseline characteristics. We analyzed 77 patients treated with MIDCAB and 2,206 treated with PCI. The MIDCAB group was older and had more severe coronary disease and a higher incidence of left ventricular dysfunction. Over a 3-year follow-up, the PCI group had favorable MACCE outcomes. After PSM, there were no between-group differences in MACCE (MIDCAB, 15.6% vs. PCI, 23.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI: 0.38-1.68, P=0.548) or TVR (MIDCAB, 2.6% vs. PCI, 5.2%; HR, 0.51; 95% CI: 0.10-3.09, P=0.509).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical outcomes were similar between MIDCAB and PCI using second-generation DES over 3 years of follow-up.

Cardiac surgery 2018 reviewed

For the year 2018, more than 22,000 published references can be found in PubMed when entering the search term "cardiac surgery". As in the last 4 years, this review focusses on conventional cardiac surgery publications which provide important and interesting information especially relevant for non-surgical colleagues. Interventional techniques have been considered if they were published in the context of classic surgical techniques. We have again reviewed the fields of coronary revascularization and valve surgery and briefly touched on aortic surgery and surgery for terminal heart failure. For revascularization of complex coronary artery disease, bypass grafting was reconfirmed as gold standard and computer-tomographic angiography established equipoise for decision-making with classic angiography. For aortic valve treatment, some new longer-term outcomes from TAVI vs. SAVR trials confirmed equipoise of both treatments for high and medium risk. New information was provided for INR-management of mechanical aortic valves as well as long-term experiences for alternatives to mechanical valves (i.e., Ross and the relatively new Ozaki procedure). In the mitral and tricuspid field, prevalence data illustrate a significant amount of under-treatment for mitral and tricuspid valve regurgitation and evidence for life prolonging-effects of surgery. Finally, elongation of the ascending aorta was identified as new risk factor for aortic dissection and 2 years outcome of the newest generation of left ventricular assist devices demonstrate impressive improvements in outcome. While this article attempts to summarize the most pertinent publications, it does not expect to be complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. As in recent years, it provides a condensed summary that is intended to give the reader "solid ground" for up-to-date decision-making in cardiac surgery and a stimulus for in-depth reading.

Historical Milestones in the Management of Stable Coronary Artery Disease over the Last Half Century

Coronary revascularization for coronary artery disease dates back to the introduction of coronary bypass by Favaloro in 1967 and coronary angioplasty by Gruentzig in 1977 (first published in 1968 and 1978, respectively). There have been many technical improvements over the ensuing 5 decades, studied in clinical trials. This article reviews the history of coronary revascularization (the development of optimal medical therapy) and points the way to the future of stable coronary artery disease management.

What is the state of hybrid coronary revascularization in 2018?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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