Combination of minimally invasive coronary bypass and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in the treatment of double-vessel coronary disease: Two-year follow-up of a new hybrid procedure compared with "on-pump" double bypass grafting

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.

Hybrid revascularization vs. coronary bypass for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Coronary artery bypass graft is the mainstay of treatment for multivessel coronary artery disease and is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention. Combined approaches such as hybrid coronary revascularization integrate coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention during the same procedure or weeks apart. These attempt to improve surgical morbidity and long-term outcomes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Per PRISMA criteria, a systematic review of keywords "Hybrid Revascularization," "Hybrid Coronary Revascularization," "Surgical," "Surgery," "Treatment," "CABG," "HCR" and "PCI" was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS. Studies comparing this technique's performance on either single or two-stage approach against traditional multiple vessel coronary artery bypass grafting were screened and analyzed for our review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-two studies totaling 6981 participants were ultimately included for analysis. Mean differences in operative time, bleeding, ventilator time and length of stay were significantly lower in the hybrid coronary revascularization group. Odds ratios in transfusions and in-hospital myocardial infarction were also lower in the hybrid coronary revascularization group. Results for in-hospital and all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stroke, reintervention, and complete revascularization were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows hybrid coronary revascularization is a feasible alternative to traditional coronary artery bypass grafting. Short-and long-term outcomes including mortality, MACE, and postoperative morbidity are similar between both groups, while hybrid approaches are associated with decreased perioperative morbidity.

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.

Return to work after coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement surgery: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and aortic valve replacement surgery are essential treatment options for people suffering from angina pectoris or aortic valve disease. Surgery aims to prolong life expectancy, improve quality of life, and facilitate participation in society for the individuals afflicted. The aim of this review was to explore the literature on work participation in patients following coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement surgery, and to identify demographic and clinical characteristics associated with returning to work.

METHODS

A scoping review framework of Arksey and O'Malley was chosen. Four electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for studies in English, Swedish, Danish or Norwegian between January 1988 and January 2020. A blinded selection of articles was performed. The data were then charted and summarized by descriptive numerical analyses and categorized into themes.

RESULTS

Forty-five out of 432 articles were included in the final full-text analysis. Absence from work following coronary artery bypass graft grafting or aortic valve replacement surgery lasted on average 30 weeks, whereas 34% of the patients never returned to work. Being female, suffering from pre-existing depression, having limited secondary education, or low income were associated with decreased return to work rates. Previous employment was a decisive factor for returning to work after surgery. Data on return to work after aortic valve replacement were scarce.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant number of patients never return to work following coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve surgery, and the time interval until work return is longer than expected. Failure to resume work represents a threat to the patients' finances and quality of life. Nurses are in a unique position to assess work-related issues and have an active part in the multi-disciplinary facilitation of tailored occupational counselling after cardiac surgery.

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.

Minimally invasive coronary surgery

Minimally invasive options for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery progressed dramatically in the last decades. Minimally invasive CABG surgery is presented trough these forms: minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB), endoscopic atraumatic coronary artery bypass (EndoACAB), robot-assisted direct coronary artery bypass (RADCAB), total endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB), and hybrid coronary revascularisation (HCR). Unfortunately, these are still limited only to the specialised centres across the world and have not been accepted by the majority of cardiac surgeons. A surgeon who is starting to practice minimally invasive CABG surgery needs to be ready for long duration of the interventions, higher rate of conversions to sternotomy and significant learning curve. Excellent results that have been published on the subject of minimally invasive revascularisation methods support the potential of these alternative approaches to evolve in the near future.

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.

[Complete myocardial revascularization in patients with multiple-vessel coronary artery disease and partial or complete absence of the grafts for coronary artery bypass surgery]

Complete revascularization in patients with multiple-vessel coronary artery disease and partial or complete absence of the grafts is still actual problem for cardiac surgeons. The main causes of the absence of conduits for coronary artery bypass surgery are aging of population, increased incidence of repeated coronary artery bypass surgery and prevalence of varicose vein disease of the lower extremities. The most perspective approaches characterized by acceptable early and long-term postoperative outcomes are bilateral internal mammary artery grafting, sequential bypass including autoarterial grafts, as well as hybrid revascularization methods. However, treatment strategy is individualized in each patient.

Aortic Valve Replacement and Concomitant Right Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Performed via a Right Minithoracotomy Approach

Objective

We present our experience of concomitant right coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and aortic valve replacement performed via a right minithoracotomy in patients with coronary lesions not amenable to percutaneous intervention.

Methods

A total of 17 patients underwent concomitant aortic valve replacement and right CABG between April 2008 and July 2013.A5-to 6-cm minithoracotomy incision was made over the right second or third intercostal space, and the costochondral cartilage was transected. A saphenous vein bypass to the right coronary artery was then performed, initiating the anastomosis from the toe of the graft. Subsequently, the aortic valve was replaced using standard techniques.

Results

There were 6 men and 11 women. The median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score mortality risk was 5% [interquartile range (IQR), 2%-8%]. The mean (SD) age was 77 (10) years, the left ventricular ejection fraction was 59% (8%), and the New York Heart Association functional class was 2.4 (0.8). One patient had a history of CABG. The mean (SD) cardiopulmonary bypass time was 168 (57) minutes, and the aortic cross-clamp time was 133 (36) minutes. Three patients underwent concomitant mitral valve surgery (replacement, 2; repair, 1). The median intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay were 47 hours (IQR, 24–90) and 9 days (IQR, 5–13), respectively. There was one reoperation for bleeding, and there was one postoperative stroke. All patients were alive at a mean (SD) follow-up of 2 (1.1) years.

Conclusions

Aortic valve replacement with concomitant CABG performed via a right minithoracotomy approach is feasible.

Hybrid myocardial revascularization

Background

In patients with advanced coronary artery disease (CAD), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with improved long-term outcomes while percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with lower periprocedural complications. A new approach has emerged in the last decade that attempts to reap the benefits of bypass surgery and stenting while minimizing the shortcomings of each approach, hybrid myocardial revascularization (HMR).Three strategies for timing of the hybrid revascularization exists, each with their own inherent advantages and shortcomings: (1) CABG followed by PCI, (2) PCI followed by CABG, or (3) simultaneous CABG + PCI in a hybrid suite.

Studies

The results of the first randomized control trial comparing HMR (CABG first) and standard CABG, POL-MIDES (Prospective Randomized PilOt Study EvaLuating the Safety and Efficacy of Hybrid Revascularization in MultIvessel Coronary Artery DisEaSe), show HMR was feasible for 93.9% of patients whereas conversion to standard CABG was required for 6.1%. At 1 year, both groups had similar all-cause mortality (CABG 2.9% vs. HMR 2%) and major adverse clinical event (MACE)-free survival rates (CABG 92.2% vs. HMR 89.8%). Results of observational and comparative studies show that minimally invasive HMR procedures in patients with multivessel CAD carry minimal perioperative mortality risk and low morbidity and do not increase the risk of postoperative bleeding. The advantage they offer in comparison to classical surgical revascularization is indeed faster rehabilitation and patient's return to normal life.

Conclusion

Hybrid myocardial revascularization has been developed as a promising technique for the treatment of high-risk patients with CAD. Hybrid revascularization using minimally invasive surgical techniques combined with PCI offers to a part of patients an advantage of optimal revascularization of the most important artery of the heart, together with adequate myocardial revascularization in a relatively delicate way. Indeed, to patients with high operative risk of standard surgery, it offers an alternative which should be considered carefully.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combining minimally invasive grafting of the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention has become a viable option for treating coronary artery disease. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a range of clinical outcomes and hospital costs.

METHODS

To identify potential studies, systematic searches were carried out in various databases. The key search terms included "hybrid revascularization" AND "coronary artery bypass grafting" OR "HCR" OR "CABG." This was followed by a meta-analysis investigating the need for blood transfusion, hospital costs, ventilation time, hospital stay, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, mortality, postoperative atrial fibrillation, renal failure, operation duration, and ICU stay.

RESULTS

The requirement for blood transfusion was significantly lower for HCR: odds ratio 0.38 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.31-0.46, P < .00001) as was the hospital stay: mean difference (MD) -1.48 days (95% CI, -2.61 to -0.36, P = 0.01) and the ventilation time: MD -8.99 hours (95% CI, -15.85 to -2.13, P = .01). On the contrary, hospital costs were more expensive for HCR: MD $3970 (95% CI, 2570-5370, P < .00001). All other comparisons were insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

In the short-term, HCR is as safe as conventional CABG and may offer certain benefits such as a lower requirement for blood transfusion and shorter hospital stays. However, HCR is more expensive than conventional CABG.

Is the Future of Coronary Arterial Revascularization a Hybrid Approach?

Objective

Hybrid coronary revascularization offers and combines the advantages of both surgical and percutaneous revascularization and eliminates at the same time the disadvantages of both procedures. The objective of this study was to assess graft and stent patency at 6 months, rate of bleeding, intensive care unit and hospital stay, rate of reintervention, and long-term clinical follow-up.

Methods

From March 2004 to November 2015, a total of 203 patients underwent robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass graft of the left internal thoracic artery to the left anterior descending artery and PCI of a non-left anterior descending vessel in a single or two stage, at three different centers. Patients underwent 6-month angiographic follow-up. The mean ± SD clinical follow-up was 77.82 ±41.4 months.

Results

Successful hybrid coronary revascularization occurred in 196 of the 203 patients. One hundred forty-six patients underwent simultaneous surgical and percutaneous intervention. Nineteen patients underwent PCI before surgery, and 38 patient underwent PCI after surgery. No in-hospital mortality occurred. The mean ± SD ICU stay was 1 ± 1 days and the mean ± SD hospital stay was 5 ± 2 days. Only 13.3% of the patients required a blood transfusion. Six-month angiographic follow-up has been performed in the 95 patients, and it demonstrated a left internal thoracic artery anastomotic patency of 97.9% and stent patency of 92.6%. A total of 77.8 ± 41.4-month clinical follow-up demonstrated 95.1% survival, 92.6% freedom from angina, and 90.7% freedom from any form of coronary revascularization.

Conclusions

Hybrid coronary revascularization seems to be a promising and safe revascularization strategy. It provides selected patients with an alternative, functionally complete revascularization with minimal surgical trauma and good long-term clinical outcomes.

Contemporary use of arterial and venous conduits in coronary artery bypass grafting: anatomical, functional and clinical aspects

Although the benefits of using the left internal mammary artery to bypass the left anterior descending artery (LAD) have been extensively ascertained, freedom from major cardiovascular events and survival after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) also correlate with the completeness of revascularisation. Hence, careful selection of the second-best graft conduit is crucial for CABG success. The more widespread use of saphenous vein grafts contrasts with the well-known long-term efficacy of multiple arterial grafting, which struggles to emerge as the procedure of choice due to concerns over increased technical difficulties and higher risk of postoperative complications. Conduit choice is at the discretion of the operator instead of being discussed by the heart team, where cardiologists are not usually engaged in such decisions due to a hypothetical lack of technical knowledge. Furthermore, according to the ESC/EACTS guidelines, traditional CABG remains the gold standard for multi-vessel coronary artery disease with complex LAD stenosis, but hybrid procedures using percutaneous coronary intervention for non-LAD targets could combine the best of two worlds. With the aim of raising the cardiologist's awareness of the surgical treatment options, we provide a comprehensive overview of the anatomical, functional and clinical aspects guiding the decision-making process in CABG strategy.

Current state and future direction of hybrid coronary revascularization

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The most optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease is a subject of ongoing debate. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) aims to combine the advantages of both percutaneous and surgical revascularization in a single strategy. This review provides a timely overview of the use, practice patterns, clinical outcomes and future perspectives of HCR.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of technological advances in stent technology and minimal invasive surgical techniques have enabled the use of HCR, in which the left internal mammary artery is grafted to the left anterior descending artery followed or preceded by percutaneous coronary intervention of non-left anterior descending artery lesions. Currently, HCR is reserved for a highly selected patient population, representing less than 1% of the total coronary artery bypass grafting volume in the United States. Clinical outcomes from observational studies as well as a randomized feasibility trial show encouraging results.

SUMMARY

HCR shows promising clinical results in patients with multivessel disease and/or left main involvement. Engagement from interventional and surgical communities, and adequate patient selection based on local expertise, and data from randomized controlled trials are needed to establish a permanent role in the armamentarium for coronary revascularization.

Hybrid coronary revascularization: a systematic review

The hybrid approach to coronary revascularization is an evolving technique that is being used as an alternative to the traditional median sternotomy coronary artery bypass graft surgery. It combines a minimally invasive approach to bypass the left anterior descending coronary artery with a percutaneous approach to revascularize the other coronary arteries. A systematic review of the available literature was conducted to evaluate the benefits, and the short- and long-term outcomes of this procedure.

Advanced hybrid closed chest revascularization: an innovative strategy for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease†

OBJECTIVES

Conventional hybrid revascularization (CHR) combines minimally invasive placement of an internal mammary artery graft to the anterior wall and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-anterior wall targets. In this study we assess perioperative and midterm outcomes of advanced hybrid revascularization (AHR) defined as the combination of single or multivessel (MV) totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB) with single or multivessel PCI.

METHODS

In total, 90 AHR patients [median age 62 years (35-86)] were compared with 90 CHR patients [median age 60 years (35-85)] in terms of perioperative and mid-term outcomes. The outcomes of the three different AHR options (MV-TECAB + PCI, MV-PCI + TECAB, MV-TECAB + MV-PCI) as well as the sequence of the interventions were further compared. Risk factors for major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCEs) related to the hybrid revascularization strategy were calculated.

RESULTS

No perioperative deaths occurred either in the AHR group or in the CHR group, rates of myocardial infarction (3.3% vs 3.3%, P = 0.196) were similar between CHR and AHR. Operative times were longer in the AHR group [337 (137-794) min vs 272 (148-550) min, P = 0.002] and conversion rates slightly higher (P = 0.060); however, intensive care unit length of stay (P = 0.162) and hospital length of stay (P = 0.238) were similar. There was no difference in the follow-up survival (P = 0.091), freedom from angina (P = 0.844), PCI target vessel revascularization (P = 0.563), TECAB target vessel revascularization (P = 0.135) and MACCEs (P = 0.601) between CHR and AHR at follow-up. No differences were detected between the three variations of AHR in perioperative outcome, mid-term survival, freedom from MACCEs and reintervention. Neither the number nor type of TECAB/PCI targets, nor the sequence of interventions were significant predictors for MACCEs at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

AHR yields comparable results with CHR and can be taken into consideration as a sternum-sparing technique for the treatment of MV-coronary artery disease in selected patients.

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

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) represents a minimally invasive revascularization strategy in which the durability of the internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft is combined with percutaneous coronary intervention to treat remaining lesions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes after HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive EMBASE and PUBMED search was performed for comparative studies evaluating in-hospital and 1-year death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

Six observational studies (1 case control, 5 propensity adjusted) comprising 1,190 patients were included; 366 (30.8%) patients underwent HCR (185 staged and 181 concurrent), and 824 (69.2%) were treated with CABG (786 off-pump, 38 on-pump). Drug-eluting stents were used in 328 (89.6%) patients undergoing HCR. Hybrid coronary revascularization was associated with lower in-hospital need for blood transfusions, shorter length of stay, and faster return to work. No significant differences were found for the composite of death, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization during hospitalization (odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.25-1.58, P = .33) and at 1-year follow-up (odds ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.20-1.24, P = .13). Comparisons of individual components showed no difference in all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, but higher repeat revascularization among patients treated with HCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid coronary revascularization is associated with lower morbidity and similar in-hospital and 1-year major adverse cerebrovascular or cardiac events rates, but greater requirement for repeat revascularization compared with CABG. Further exploration of this strategy with adequately powered randomized trials is warranted.

Combining PCI and CABG: the role of hybrid revascularization

Hybrid coronary revascularization combines the benefits of both percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) by combining the benefits of the LIMA-to-LAD graft and drug eluting stent (DES) to non-LAD regions. Through this approach, a patient receives the long-term benefit of the LIMA graft and avoids the morbidity of a full sternotomy and saphenous vein grafts. Available data related to outcomes following hybrid revascularization is limited to small studies. In this review we seek to provide an overview of hybrid revascularization in the era of modern drug eluting stent technology, discuss appropriate patient selection, and comment on future trial design. Additionally, we review the recent literature pertaining to the hybrid approach.

Effect of one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization on postoperative renal function and bleeding: a comparison study with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery

OBJECTIVES

Although 1-stop hybrid coronary revascularization offers potential benefits for selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, the exposure to contrast dye and potent antiplatelet drugs could increase the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury and coagulopathy. The goal of the present study was to compare the measures of renal function, postoperative bleeding, and transfusion requirements in patients undergoing hybrid revascularization compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data from 141 consecutive patients who had undergone 1-stop hybrid coronary revascularization from June 2007 to January 2011. Propensity score matching with 141 off-pump CABG patients from our surgical database was performed for comparison. The change in renal function, cumulative chest tube drainage, and clinical outcome parameters were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Compared with off-pump CABG, patients undergoing hybrid revascularization had significantly less chest tube drainage at 12 hours after surgery (P = .04) and for the total amount during the postoperative period (P < .001) and required fewer blood transfusions (P = .001). The hybrid group had a higher incidence of acute kidney injury, but this did not reach statistical significance (25.2% vs 17.6%, P = .13). The hybrid group required less inotropic and vasoactive support, had fewer respiratory complications, required a shorter time of mechanical support, and had a decreased length of intensive care unit stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with off-pump CABG, 1-stop hybrid coronary revascularization was associated with benefits such as less postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements without significantly increasing the additional risk of acute kidney injury.

Hybrid coronary revascularization as a safe, feasible, and viable alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: what is the current evidence?

The “hybrid” approach to multivessel coronary artery disease combines surgical left internal thoracic artery (LITA) to left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention of the remaining lesions. Ideally, the LITA to LAD bypass graft is performed in a minimally invasive fashion. This review aims to clarify the place of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) in the current therapeutic armamentarium against multivessel coronary artery disease. Eighteen studies including 970 patients were included for analysis. The postoperative LITA patency varied between 93.0% and 100.0%. The mean overall survival rate in hybrid treated patients was 98.1%. Hybrid treated patients showed statistically significant shorter hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, and intubation time, less packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion requirements, and lower in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates compared with patients treated by on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This resulted in a significant reduction in costs for hybrid treated patients in the postoperative period. In studies completed to date, HCR appears to be a promising and cost-effective alternative for CABG in the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease in a selected patient population.

Developing a new hybrid revascularization program: a road map for hospital managers and physician leaders

Hybrid coronary revascularization, which involves minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery using the left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending and percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents for the remaining diseased coronary vessels, is an innovative approach to decrease the morbidity of conventional surgery. Little information is available to guide hospital managers and physician leaders in implementing a hybrid revascularization program. In this article, we describe the people-process-technology issues that managers and leaders are likely to encounter as they develop a hybrid revascularization program in their practice.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive (3-cm anterolateral thoracotomy), sternal-sparing, off-pump left internal mammary artery-left anterior descending (LIMA-LAD) coronary artery anastomosis with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to non-LAD coronary arteries. We compared outcomes of HCR versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

Between October 8, 2003 and April 23, 2010, 147 patients with multivessel coronary disease were treated with HCR at a US academic center. These were matched 4:1 to 588 contemporaneous patients treated with multivessel OPCAB by sternotomy using an optimal matching algorithm with 8 preoperative variables: age, gender, ejection fraction, presence of diabetes, myocardial infarction (MI), number of diseased vessels, left main coronary artery disease, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM) score. In-hospital major adverse events (MACCE) and the need for repeated revascularization during follow-up were compared between groups. All-cause mortality was determined using the Social Security Death Index (SSDI).

RESULTS

Matching produced groups with similar coronary anatomy and statistically similar preoperative risk factors. The incidence of MACCE was similar between groups (3/147 HCR versus 12/588 OPCAB). During a median 3.2 years of follow up, the need for repeated revascularization was higher for HCR than for OPCAB (18/147 [12.2%] versus 22/588 [3.7%]; p < 0.001). The incidence of blood transfusion was higher for the OPCAB group. Estimated 5-year survival was similar between groups (OPCAB, 84.3% versus HCR, 86.8%; p = 0.61).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid coronary revascularization is a minimally invasive treatment for multivessel CAD. Although repeated revascularization was greater with HCR, both in-hospital and midterm outcomes were comparable with those of traditional OPCAB. Further investigation into the comparative effectiveness of this alternative strategy is warranted.

Closed chest hybrid coronary revascularization for multivessel disease - current concepts and techniques from a two-center experience

Hybrid coronary revascularization combining minimally invasive coronary surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) allows sternal preserving treatment of multivessel coronary disease. The main principle of the technique includes placement of mammary artery graft to the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) and performance of PCI in non-LAD target vessels. This principle is based on increasing data showing equivalent results of PCI with coronary revascularization using saphenous vein grafts in selected patients. Providing that perioperative and long-term results are as good as the results of conventional surgical revascularization, this option seems to be quite appealing for patients and referring cardiologists. This concept has been designed to allow rapid rehabilitation and minimize periprocedural pain under concomitant preservation of the patient's body integrity. Robotically assisted endoscopic approaches for hybrid coronary revascularization set the pace for a closed-chest treatment of multivessel coronary disease. The time point of PCI, the use of different anticoagulation protocols as well as the stent selection are some of the variables, which affect outcome. We additionally report on the midterm results of 130 after-closed-chest hybrid-coronary procedures in two institutions. Hybrid procedures using robotic technology and PCI allow closed chest treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Single- and double-bypass grafts are feasible and simultaneous interventions can be performed. The overall safety of the procedure seems to be adequate and perioperative clinical results are satisfactory. Intermediate term survival and freedom from angina are excellent.

Hybrid options for treating cardiac disease

The options for treating heart disease have greatly expanded during the course of the last 2 1/2 decades with the advent of hybrid technology. The hybrid option for treating cardiac disease implies using the technology of both interventional cardiology and cardiac surgery to treat cardiac disease. This rapidly developing technology has given rise to new and creative techniques to treat cardiac disease involving coronary artery disease, coronary artery disease and cardiac valve disease, and atrial fibrillation. It has also led to the establishment of new procedural suites called hybrid operating rooms that facilitate the integration of technologies of interventional cardiology catheterization laboratories with those of cardiac surgery operating rooms. The development of hybrid options for treating cardiac disease has also greatly augmented teamwork and collaboration between interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons.

Perioperative outcomes in hybrid versus conventional surgical coronary artery revascularisation

A best evidence topic was written on perioperative outcomes in hybrid coronary revascularisation according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'In patients with stable multivessel coronary artery disease, does the use of hybrid coronary revascularisation compared to conventional and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality?' Six hundred and twenty-three papers were found in the literature search. From these results, six comparative studies and one review paper appeared to be relevant. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant results and weaknesses of these papers were compiled and tabulated. Critical appraisal ruled out three of the six comparative studies identified by the search. Therefore, the following papers constituted best evidence. de Cannière et al. reported a non-randomised retrospective comparison of staged hybrid revascularisation with conventional CABG, showing an association with shorter intensive care unit and total hospital stays, as well as shorter time to return to work. Kon et al. reported a non-randomised retrospective comparison of simultaneous hybrid revascularisation with off-pump CABG, showing that fewer blood transfusions were required in addition to shorter intensive care and hospital stays. Vassiliades et al. reported a non-randomised retrospective comparison of staged hybrid revascularisation with off-pump CABG, which failed to show a difference between 30-day major adverse cardiac events in the two patient groups. DeRose reviewed 13 published series of hybrid revascularisation cases, concluding that experienced centres should consider hybrid revascularisation as an appropriate alternative to conventional CABG for selected patients. In summary, these papers provide limited evidence of improved perioperative outcomes in both staged and simultaneous hybrid revascularisation compared to CABG. Weaknesses of the comparative studies include the lack of mid-term and long-term follow-up and the difficulty of generalising results from specialist units to general cardiac surgical practice. A large randomised control trial comparing hybrid revascularisation and coronary artery bypass with mid-term follow-up will be required to establish the clinical effectiveness of this procedure.