Short- and intermediate-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization for double-vessel disease

Long-Term Outcomes After Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is an alternative option to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), but the long-term outcomes of HCR versus CABG remain unclear. We aimed to analyze the long-term outcomes after HCR and CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease using meta-analysis. A systemic literature search of PubMed and EMBASE was performed from inception to March 2023. Studies reporting Kaplan-Meier curves with follow-up ≥1 year were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and repeat revascularization. In total, 13 studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 12 propensity-score matched observational studies) were analyzed. The mean follow-up period was 5.1 ± 3.1 years. HCR was associated with similar overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.36), significantly higher incidence of MACCEs (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.06), and repeat revascularization (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.64) compared with CABG. In phase-specific analysis, the mortality rate was similar, and the incidence of repeat revascularization was higher in HCR regardless of phases. The incidence of MACCEs was higher in HCR during the mid-term phase (1 to 5 years), but it was similar during the long-term phase (long-term: ≥5 years). In conclusion, despite the higher incidence of MACCEs and repeat revascularization compared with CABG, HCR offered a similar long-term survival. Even longer-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials with a large population are warranted to investigate the role of HCR for multivessel coronary artery 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.

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.

Minimally invasive left internal mammary artery harvesting techniques during the learning curve are safe and achieve similar results as conventional LIMA harvesting techniques

Background

Internal thoracic arteries (ITAs) are considered to be the standard conduits used for coronary revascularization. Recently minimally invasive procedures are performed to harvest ITAs. The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to observe the effect and safety of less invasive LIMA harvesting approaches in the learning curve compared to conventional harvesting.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 138 patients divided into three different groups based on the LIMA harvesting techniques: conventional sternotomy LIMA harvesting, CSLH (n: 64), minimally invasive direct LIMA harvesting, MIDLH (n: 42), and robotic-assisted LIMA harvesting, RALH (n: 32). The same 138 patients were also divided into sternotomy (n: 64), and non-sternotomy (n: 74) groups keeping both MIDLH and RALH in the non-sternotomy category. Parameters associated with LIMA’s quality and some other perioperative parameters such as harvesting time, LIMA damage, perioperative myocardial infarction, ventilation time, 24 h drainage, ICU stay, hospital mortality, computed tomographic angiography (CTA) LIMA patency on discharge, and after one year were recorded.

Results

The mean LIMA harvesting time was 36.9 ± 14.3, 74.4 ± 24.2, and 164.7 ± 51.9 min for CSLH, MIDLH, and RALH groups respectively (p < 0.001). One patient 1/32 (3.1%) in the RALH group had LIMA damage while the other two groups had none. One-month LIMA CTA patency was 56/57 (98.2%), 34/36 (94.4%), and 27/27 (100%) (p = 0.339), while 1 year CTA patency was 47/51 (92.1%), 30/33 (90.9%), and 24/25 (96%) for CSLH, MIDLH, and RALH groups respectively (p = 0.754). In the case of sternotomy vs non-sternotomy, the LIMA harvesting time was 36.9 ± 14.3 and 113.6 ± 59.3 min (p < 0.001). CTA patency on discharge was 56/57 (98.2%) and 61/63 (96.8%) (p = 0.619), while 1 year CTA patency was 47/51 (92.1%) and 54/58 (93.1%) (p = 0.850) for sternotomy vs non-sternotomy groups.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive left internal mammary artery harvesting techniques during the learning curve are safe and have no negative impact on the quality of LIMA. Perioperative outcomes are comparable to conventional procedures except for prolonged harvesting time. RALH is the least invasive and most time-consuming procedure during the learning curve. These procedures are safe and can be performed for selected patients even during the learning curve.

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.

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.

Is hybrid coronary revascularization really beneficial in the long term?

 

OBJECTIVES

This analysis aimed to compare both short- and long-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with different techniques and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

Twenty-three studies were included, covering 10 468 different patients, among whom 2403 patients underwent HCR with either simultaneous or staged method and 8065 patients underwent CABG.

RESULTS

Compared with CABG, HCR had a statistically significant lower risk of stroke [odds ratio (OR) = 0.55, P = 0.049], major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR = 0.69, P = 0.024) and blood transfusion (BT) (OR = 0.39, P < 0.001), whereas no significant differences were detected in mortality, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. A network meta-analysis showed that simultaneous HCR had significantly better outcomes in stroke (OR = 0.24, P = 0.01) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (OR = 0.29, P < 0.001), and staged HCR had a significantly better outcome in BT (OR = 0.31, P < 0.001). According to the frequentist statistic results, simultaneous HCR had the highest probability of being the best treatment in terms of mortality (84%), stroke (97%), myocardial infarction (88%) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (99%), whereas staged HCR had the highest probability of being the best in postoperative repeat revascularization (59%) and BT (83%). However, long-term results showed no significant difference between the HCR and CABG techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

HCR appears to be a feasible option for multivessel coronary artery disease patients. Compared to traditional CABG, HCR had lower risk of adverse events in the short term, but in the long term, survival rate and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events rate were similar between groups.

Predictive value of ACEF II score in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease undergoing one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization

Background

We aimed to investigate the predictive value of recently updated ACEF II score on major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) undergoing one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR).

Methods

Patients with MVCAD undergoing one-stop HCR were retrospectively recruited from March 2018 to September 2020. Several prediction risk models, including ACEF II score, were calculated for each patient. Kaplan-Meier curve was used to evaluate freedom from cardiac death and MACCE survival rates. Differences of prediction performance among risk scores for predicting MACCE were compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Results

According to the ACEF II score, a total of 120 patients undergoing one-stop HCR were assigned to low-score group (80 cases) and high-score group (40 cases). During the median follow-up time of 18 months, the incidence of MACCE in the low-score group and high-score group were 8.8 % and 37.5 %, respectively (p < 0.001); and the cardiac death rate of the two were 2.5% and 12.5%, respectively (p < 0.05). Moreover, the cumulative freedom from cardiac death (97.5% vs. 86.8, p < 0.05) and MACCE (75.2% vs. 52.8%, p < 0.001) survival rates in the high-score group were significantly lower than in the low-score group. According to the Cox proportional hazards regression, the ACEF II score was an independent prognostic indicator for MACCE with hazards ratio (HR) 2.24, p = 0.003. The ROC curve analysis indicated that the areas under the curve (AUC) of MACCE from the ACEF II score was 0.740 (p < 0.001), while the AUC of MACCE from the SYNTAX score II CABG was 0.621 (p = 0.070) and the AUC from the EuroSCORE II was 0.703 (p < 0.001). Thus, the accurate predictive value of ACEF II score was similar to the EuroSCORE II but much higher than the SYNTAX score II CABG.

Conclusions

The updated ACEF II score is a more convenient and validated prediction tool for MACCE in patients with MVCAD undergoing one-stop HCR comparing to other risk models.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Graft Patency after Robotically Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

Objective

With advances in robotic instrumentation and technology, both robotically assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RMIDCAB) and totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB) have been widely used over the past 20 years. Graft patency is the most important outcome in coronary bypass surgery and is associated with long-term prognosis. In this article we reviewed all experts’ studies in the field of robotic assisted coronary artery bypass and investigated graft patency in patients who underwent RMIDCAB or TECAB.

Methods

We performed a literature search in PubMed from 1999 to 2018 using the terms “Robotic” and “Coronary bypass” and/or “Minimally invasive” and/or “Totally endoscopic.” Of the articles found, studies investigating graft patency were specifically selected.

Results

In 33 articles, a total of 4,000 patients underwent robotic assisted coronary artery bypass surgery either by a RMIDCAB (2,396) or by a TECAB (1,604) approach. The graft patency was assessed by invasive angiography or computed tomographic angiography in all studies. The mean graft patency at early (<1 month), midterm (<5 years), and long-term (>5 years) follow-up was 97.7%, 96.1%, and 93.2% in RMIDCAB and 98.8%, 95.8%, and 93.6% in TECAB, respectively.

Conclusions

The graft patency of robotic assisted coronary artery bypass was equivalent to reported outcomes of the conventional approach. These results should encourage the adoption of robotic approaches in coronary bypass surgery.