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

Minimally Invasive Isolated and Hybrid Surgical Revascularization for Multivessel Coronary Disease: A Single-Center Long-Term Follow-Up

INTRODUCTION

Some evidence suggests that surgical minimally invasive (MIDCAB) and hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) are safe and potentially effective at short-term follow-up. Data on long-term outcomes are more limited and inconclusive.

METHODS

Between February 2013 and December 2023, a total of 1997 patients underwent surgical coronary artery revascularization at our institution, of whom, 92 (4.7%) received left anterior mini-thoracotomy access (MIDCAB), either isolated (N = 78) or in combination with percutaneous coronary intervention (N = 14, HCR group).

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 75 months (range 3.1: 149 months), cardiac mortality was 0% while overall mortality was 3%, with one in-hospital mortality and two additional late deaths. Conversion to sternotomy happened in two patients (2.1%), and surgical re-explorations occurred in five patients (4.6%), of whom three for bleeding and two for graft failure. All patients received left internal mammary (LIMA) to left anterior descending artery (LAD) grafting (100%). In the HCR group, 10 patients (72%) showed percutaneous revascularization (PCI) after MIDCAB, showing PCI on a mean of 1.6 ± 0.6 vessels and implanting 2.1 ± 0.9 drug-eluting stents.

CONCLUSIONS

MIDCAB, in isolation or in association with hybrid coronary revascularization, is associated with encouraging short- and long-term results in selected patients discussed within a dedicated heart-team.

Revascularization Modalities in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Review of the Current State of Evidence

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) stands as a leading global cause of mortality, underscoring the importance of effective prevention, early diagnosis, and timely intervention. While medications offer benefits to many patients, revascularization procedures such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and emerging hybrid approaches remain pivotal for ACS management. This review delves into the 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines alongside an analysis of existing literature to shed light on the spectrum of revascularization methods. While both CABG and PCI demonstrate promising outcomes, the optimal choice between the two hinges on a comprehensive assessment of individual patient factors, anatomical complexity guided by advanced imaging, comorbidities, and age. The determination of whether to pursue culprit or total revascularization, as well as immediate or staged revascularization, is contingent upon various factors, including age, disease complexity, and clinical outcomes. This evidence-based decision-making process is orchestrated by a multidisciplinary heart team grounded in ongoing clinical evaluation. The primary objective of this review is to provide valuable insights into revascularization strategies and scrutinize the congruence of current guidelines with recent advancements in the field.

Postoperative results of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass procedure in 234 patients

Introduction

Minimally invasive approach in cardiac surgery has gained popularity. In order to reduce surgical trauma in coronary surgery minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) has already been established. This technique has been introduced for revascularisation of isolated left anterior descending (LAD). It can also be performed for hybrid revascularisation procedure in multi-vessel disease.

Methods

From 2017 to 2021, 234 patients received MIDCAB operation in our heartcenter 73% were male. Most of the patients had two or three vessel disease (74%). The average age of the patients was 66 ± 12 years mean. The left internal mammary artery (LIMA) was anastomosed to the LAD through left minithoracotomy approach. Multi-vessel MIDCAB (MV-MIDCAB) including two anastomoses (T-graft to LIMA with additional saphenous vein graft) was done in 15% (n = 35).

Results

The average operation time was 2.3 ± 0.8 h mean. The 30-day mortality was 1.7% (n = 4). The average amount of packed red blood cells (pRBC) that was given intra- and postoperatively was 0.4 ± 0.8 units mean. The mean intensive care unit stay (ICU) was 1 ± 1.2 days. Three patients (1.3%) had wound infection postoperatively. The rate of neurologic complications was 0.4% (n = 1). Two patients (0.9%) had myocardial infarction and received coronary re-angiography perioperatively including stent implantation of the right coronary artery.

Discussion

The MIDCAB procedure is a safe and less traumatic procedure for selected patients with proximal LAD lesions. It is also an option for hybrid procedure in multi-vessel disease. The ICU stay and application of pRBC's are low. Our MIDCAB results show a good postoperative clinical outcome. However, follow-up data are necessary to evaluate long-term outcome.

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-assisted versus conventional off-pump coronary surgery in women: A propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) previously demonstrated its potential benefits in women; however, robotic-assisted OPCAB was scarcely studied.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether robotic-assisted OPCAB could further improve the outcomes in women and the potential impact of hybrid approaches with stents and completeness of revascularization on the late outcomes.

METHODS

Women who underwent robotic-assisted or conventional OPCAB (with sternotomy) between May 2005 and January 2021 at Lankenau Heart Institute were included. Propensity score matching was used to match 273 pairs on 27 characteristics.

RESULTS

In the intraoperative period, women who underwent robotic-assisted OPCAB presented longer operative times (6.00 vs. 5.38 h; p < 0.001), higher rates of extubation in the operating room (83.9% vs. 75.5%; p = 0.019) and lower rates of blood transfusion (13.2% vs. 32.2%; p < 0.001). In the postoperative period, women who underwent robotic-assisted OPCAB presented lower rates of new onset atrial fibrillation (16.8% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.016), need of blood transfusion (33.0% vs. 54.9%; p < 0.001), shorter intensive care unit (ICU) (46.1 vs. 49.8 h; p = 0.006) and hospital length of stay (5.0 vs. 6.0 days; p < 0.001). We observed no statistically significant differences in the rates of operative death between the groups (1.47% vs. 1.47%; p = 0.771). In the follow-up, we observed no differences in terms of overall survival regardless of hybrid procedures with stents and completeness of revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted OPCAB in women is as safe as conventional OPCAB and may further improve outcomes. Hybrid coronary revascularization was a valuable adjunct in the robotic scenario and completeness of revascularization did not play a role in this setting.