Is hybrid coronary revascularization really beneficial in the long term?

Multivessel Coronary Disease and Severe Atherosclerotic Aorta: Real-World Experience

Background and Objectives: Surgical revascularisation of patients with atherosclerosis of the ascending aorta remains a challenge. Different surgical strategies have been described in coronary surgical patients to offer alternative revascularisation strategies other than the conventional surgical revascularisation in patients unsuitable for it. The aim of this study is to compare the real-world outcomes between two groups of patients who underwent off-pump surgery (left internal mammary artery graft to the left anterior descending artery) or a hybrid with a percutaneous revascularisation procedure at a later stage. Materials and Methods: This is a single-centre retrospective observational study. Between the years 2010 and 2021, 91/6863 patients (1.33%) were diagnosed with severe atherosclerosis of the ascending aorta. All the patients were treated with off-pump revascularisation (91 patients), and the cardiologist would decide at a later stage whether the rest of the vessels would be treated with percutaneous revascularisation (25 patients). Results: There was no statistical difference in the various preoperative characteristics, except for coronary artery left main disease (30.30% vs. 64%; p = 0.0043). The two groups had no statistical differences in the perioperative characteristics and postoperative complications. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year mortality rates in the two groups were 6.1% vs. 0%, 59% vs. 80%, and 93.9% vs. 100%, respectively (off-pump vs. hybrid with percutaneous revascularisation procedure, p = 0.1958). Conclusions: Both strategies have high long-term comparable mortality. The off-pump surgery and the HCR procedure at a later stage may be solutions for these high-risk patients, but the target treatment should be complete HCR revascularisation during the index hospitalization.

Simultaneous Hybrid Coronary Revascularization vs Conventional Strategies for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A 10-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Although evidence is sufficient to confirm that hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is safe and effective in the short term, its value in the long run is debatable.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the long-term outcomes of HCR with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel disease.

METHODS

Three groups of patients, 540 each, receiving HCR, CABG, or PCI between June 2007 to September 2018, were matched using propensity score matching. Patients were stratified by EuroSCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) II (low ≤0.9; 0.9 < medium <1.5; high ≥1.5) and SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score (low ≤22; 22 < medium <33; high ≥33). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) scores were compared among the 3 groups.

RESULTS

In terms of MACCE and SAQ, HCR performed similarly to off-pump CABG but significantly outperformed PCI (P < 0.001). In the low-to-medium EuroSCORE II and medium-to-high SYNTAX score tertiles, MACCE rates in the HCR group were significantly lower than those in the PCI (EuroSCORE II: low, 30.7% vs 41.2%; P = 0.006; medium, 31.3% vs 41.7%; P = 0.013; SYNTAX score: medium, 27.6% vs 41.2%; P = 0.018; high, 32.4% vs 52.7%; P = 0.011) but were similar to those in the CABG group. In the high EuroSCORE II stratum, HCR had a lower MACCE rate than CABG (31.9% vs 47.0%; P = 0.041) and PCI (31.9% vs 53.7%; P = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional strategies, HCR provided satisfactory long-term outcomes in MACCE and functional status for multivessel disease.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is an emerging approach for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) which combines the excellent long-term outcomes of surgery with the early recovery and reduced short-term complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Here, we evaluated the effectiveness of HCR compared to PCI in patients with MVD.

METHODS

A systematic database search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL/CCTR was conducted by June 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days and at latest follow-up between patients undergoing HCR versus PCI.

RESULTS

A total of 27,041 patients (HCR: 939 patients, PCI: 26,102 patients) were included from seven studies published between 2013 and 2021. At latest follow-up, HCR was associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.80, p = 0.010) and target vessel revascularization (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37-0.64, p < 0.001), while the difference for MACCE did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20-1.05, p = 0.061). No differences were observed in terms of 30-day outcomes, nor rates of mortality or stroke at latest follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

HCR might be a valid alternative to multivessel PCI, demonstrating a lower incidence of MI and TVR. Center experience, well-coordinated heart team discussions, and good patient selection likely remain essential to ensure optimal outcomes. Future comparative studies are required to define the optimal target population.

Robotic hybrid coronary revascularization-A need for strategy specific data

Robotic totally endoscopic techniques to perform the left internal thoracic artery to left anterior descending graft, coupled with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), provide the least invasive option to achieve hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR). Shorter hospital stays and reduced need for blood transfusions have been consistently being reported by several studies along with similar long-term outcomes. Considerable variations exist in the definition of HCR which can be single or two-staged with surgical revascularization being carried out after PCI or vice versa. Variations also exist with respect to usage of cardiopulmonary bypass, surgical incisions, and the use of minimally invasive robotic techniques. The different strategies of HCR do not lead to similar outcomes and the findings of one strategy cannot be extrapolated to the entire group. Studies reporting different strategies of HCR should ideally provide more granular data when reporting outcomes.