Randomized Clinical Trial of Surgical Versus Percutaneous Versus Hybrid Multivessel Coronary Revascularization: 3 Years' Follow-Up

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.

Comparative Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Treatment of Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a major global health issue and a leading cause of death. This study compares the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the management of IHD, focusing on their impact on revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), and post-procedural stroke. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of PCI and CABG in treating IHD based on an exhaustive literature review of the past 5 years, emphasizing recent advancements and outcomes in IHD management.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review analyzed 32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The study specifically assessed the incidences of revascularization, stroke, and MI in patients treated with either PCI or CABG. The comparison between CABG and PCI exclusively focused on lesions with a SYNTAX score exceeding 32.

Results

Our findings highlight CABG's significant efficacy over PCI in reducing revascularization and MI. The aggregated Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) value for revascularization was 1.85 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.65 - 2.07), signifying CABG's advantage. Additionally, CABG demonstrated superior performance in diminishing MI occurrences (M-H = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.13 - 6.53). In contrast, PCI was more effective in reducing stroke (M-H = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.10).

Conclusion

The study confirms CABG's superiority in reducing revascularization and MI in IHD patients, highlighting PCI's effectiveness in reducing stroke risk. These findings underscore the importance of personalized treatment strategies in IHD management and emphasize the need for ongoing research and evidence-based guidelines to aid in treatment selection for IHD patients.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Hybrid vs. Surgical vs. Percutaneous Multivessel Coronary Revascularization: 5‑year Follow-up of HREVS Trial

Aim      To evaluate 5-year results of the HREVS (Hybrid REvascularization Versus Standarts) study.Material and methods  The study included 155 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who were randomized into 3 groups: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n=50), hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) (n=52) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=53) according to the consensus of the cardiology team on the technical and clinical feasibility of each of the three coronary revascularization strategies. The primary endpoint of the study was residual ischemia 12 months after revascularization according to data of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) over 5 years of follow-up, which included all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and clinically determined repeat myocardial revascularization.Results Baseline characteristics of patients did not differ between study groups. Median residual ischemia determined by SPECT data after 12 months was not statistically significantly different in the CABG, HCR and PCI groups: 6.7 [4.6; 8.8]%, 6.4 [4.3; 8.5]% and 7.9 [5.9; 9.8]%, respectively (p=0.45). Mean follow-up period was 76.5 months (at least 60 months). There were no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality between the CABG, HCR and PCI groups, 10.6, 12.8 and 8.2 %, respectively (p=0.23). Statistically significant differences between the groups of CABG, HCR and PCI in the incidence of myocardial infarction (12.8; 8.5 and 16.3 %; p=0.12), stroke (4.2; 6.4 and 10.2 % ; p=0.13), repeat revascularization for clinical indications (23.4; 23.4 and 34.7 %; p=0.11) were not observed either. However, the cumulative 5-year MACCE value was similar in the HCR group and the CABG group but significantly lower than in the PCI group (51.1, 51.1 and 69.4 %, respectively; p = 0.03).Conclusion      HCR that combines advantages of PCI and CABG is a promising strategy for coronary revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease. HCR demonstrates satisfactory long-term results comparable to those of CABG but superior to PCI. To confirm the safety and efficacy of HCR, a large multicenter study is required that would have a sufficient power to evaluate clinical endpoints.

Evaluation of the effect of simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization on postoperative bleeding and renal function: A comparison study with minimally invasive direct off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES

The present study sought to compare postoperative bleeding and renal function in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) and minimally invasive direct off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCABG).

METHODS

The study retrospectively collected the data of 594 consecutive patients who underwent simultaneous HCR and 351 patients who underwent MIDCABG with planned staged HCR (MIDCABG first, then elective percutaneous coronary intervention) in Fuwai Hospital from June 2007 to December 2020. A total of 317 pairs of patients who were matched in a 1:1 ratio with propensity score matching were enrolled in this study. Bleeding and changes in renal function were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Compared with patients who underwent MIDCABG, patients who underwent simultaneous HCR had significantly greater chest tube drainage on the day of the operation (492.7 ± 282.4 mL vs 441.0 ± 261.9 mL; P = .023), but no significant difference was detected in the total amount during the postoperative period (788.8 ± 458.9 mL vs 753.3 ± 409.8 mL; P = .74). The differences in re-exploration for bleeding (0.3% vs 1.6%; P = .13), blood transfusion (18.9% vs 16.4%; P = .13), acute kidney injury (23.3% vs 18.6%; P = .53), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeated revascularization) (2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .67) between the 2 groups did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with MIDCABG, simultaneous HCR (MIDCABG first, instant percutaneous coronary intervention) did not increase postoperative bleeding or the incidence of acute kidney injury.

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.