Hybrid coronary revascularization: position paper of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions

Myocardial revascularization in coronary artery disease via percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery effectively relieves symptoms, significantly improves prognosis and quality of life when combined with guideline-directed medical therapy. Hybrid coronary revascularization is a promising alternative to percutaneous coronary intervention or CABG in selected patients and is defined as a planned and/or intended combination of consecutive CABG surgery using at least 1 internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending (LAD), and catheter-based coronary intervention to the non-LAD vessels for the treatment of multivessel disease. The main indications for hybrid coronary revascularization are (i) to achieve complete revascularization in patients who cannot undergo conventional CABG, (ii) to treat patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease with a non-LAD vessel as the culprit lesion that needs revascularization and (iii) in highly select patients with multivessel disease with complex LAD lesions and simple percutaneous coronary intervention targets for all other vessels. Hybrid coronary revascularization patients receive a left internal mammary artery graft to the LAD artery through a minimal incision along with percutaneous coronary intervention to the remaining diseased coronary vessels using latest generation drug-eluting stents. A collaborative environment with a dedicated heart team is the optimal platform to perform such interventions, which aim to improve the quality and outcome of myocardial revascularization. This position paper analyses the rationale of hybrid coronary revascularization and the currently available evidence on the various techniques and delves into the sequence of the interventions and pharmacological management during and after the procedure.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin release after conventional and minimally invasive cardiac surgery

After cardiac surgery, a certain degree of myocardial injury is common. The arbitrarily proposed biomarker cut-off point in the Third Universal Definition for diagnosing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)–related perioperative myocardial infarction (PMI) is controversial and unvalidated for non-CABG surgery. Minimally invasive cardiac surgery is often thought to be associated with less myocardial damage compared to conventional surgical approaches. We conducted a real-life prospective study with serial sampling of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) in patients undergoing conventional and minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Four different types of cardiac surgery were performed in 400 patients (February 2014–January 2015): CABG, aortic valve replacement, minimally invasive mitral/tricuspid valve surgery through the HeartPort (HP) technique and combined CABG/valve surgery. Each group was further subdivided for comparison between the different surgical techniques. Blood samples were collected consecutively at intensive care unit (ICU) admission and 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 and 48 h thereafter. The hs-cTnT values by peak timepoint differed significantly depending on the surgical approach. The overall peak timepoint for hs-cTnT occurred 6 h after ICU admission. The combined surgery and multiple-valve HP groups had the highest values (medians of 1067.5 (744.9–1455) ng/L and 1166 (743.7–2470) ng/L, respectively). The peak hs-cTnT values for patients developing PMI showed high variability. Differentiation between cardiac surgery–related necrosis and PMI remains challenging. This study emphasizes the importance of a clinically reliable biomarker cut-off value in addition to electrocardiography and echocardiography to optimize PMI diagnosis.

Hybrid Revascularization: A Review

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines surgical bypass with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed either during the same procedure or in a staged approach within 60 days. Coronary artery bypass grafting using the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) has shown excellent long-term patency with improved patient survival. It remains the gold standard treatment for the majority of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, saphenous vein grafts have poor long-term patency. Advances in stent technology have resulted in reduced rates of thrombosis and restenosis, making PCI a viable alternative to coronary surgery in selected patients. HCR is attractive as a less invasive method of coronary revascularization which preserves the benefits of the LIMA performed with less invasive surgical techniques with the efficacy of newer generation stents.

Short-Term and Mid-Term Clinical Outcomes Following Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) is one of the standard treatments for coronary artery disease (CAD) while hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) represents an evolving revascularization strategy. However, the difference in outcomes between them remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a meta-analysis to compare the short-term and mid-term outcomes of HCR versus OPCAB for the treatment of multivessel or left main CAD.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane databases to identify related studies and a routine meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 6121 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in short-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.30-1.03, p = 0.06) or mortality (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.17-1.48, p = 0.22). HCR required less ventilator time (SMD: -0.36, 95% CI: -0.55- -0.16, p < 0.001), ICU stay (SMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.58 - -0.13, p < 0.01), hospital stay (SMD: -0.29, 95% CI: -0.50- -0.07, p < 0.05) and blood transfusion rate (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.49-0.67, p < 0.001), but needed more operation time (SMD: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.54-2.05, p < 0.001) and hospitalization costs (SMD: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.45-1.66, p < 0.001). The HCR group had lower mid-term MACCE rate (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26-0.92, p < 0.05) but higher rate in mid-term target vessel revascularization (TVR, RR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.32-3.67, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

HCR had similar short-term mortality and morbidity comparing to OPCAB. HCR decreased the ventilator time, ICU stay, hospital stay, blood transfusion rate and increased operation time and hospitalization costs. HCR has a lower mid-term MACCE rate while OPCAB shows better in mid-term TVR.

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.

Short-term clinical outcomes after hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass for the treatment of multivessel or left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

Background

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) are both feasible, less invasive techniques for coronary revascularization. Although both techniques utilize the left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft, HCR uses drug-eluting stents instead of saphenous vein bypass. It remains unclear whether HCR is equal to, better or worse than OPCABG.

Methods and results

A meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model. Seven observational studies were included. There was no significant difference either in in-hospital mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13–2.59, P=0.47] or in the MACCE rate (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24–1.64, P=0.34) between the HCR group and the OPCABG group. A significant difference was observed between the two groups in the length of hospitalization (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.13–0.97, P=0.01), length of ICU stay (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.10–0.80, P<0.05), intubation time (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.13–0.84, P<0.01), need for red blood transfusion (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.56–0.82, P<0.001), and total in-hospital costs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.39–1.42, P<0.01).

Conclusion

Compared with OPCABG, HCR did not improve early survival but decreased the length of hospitalization, length of ICU stay, intubation time, and need for red blood transfusion, and increased total in-hospitalcosts.

Clinical Outcomes of Revascularization Strategies for Patients With MVD/LMCA Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), a new minimally invasive procedure for patients requiring revascularization for multivessel coronary lesions, combines coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left anterior descending (LAD) lesions and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD coronary lesions. However, available data related to outcomes comparing the 3 revascularization therapies is limited to small studies.We conducted a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials up to December 31, 2014, without language restriction. A total of 16 randomized trials (n=4858 patients) comparing HCR versus PCI or off-pump CABG (OPCAB) were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular events (CVE), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effect and fixed-effect models. Ranking probabilities were used to calculate a summary numerical value: the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve.No significant differences were seen between the HCR and PCI in short term (in hospital and 30 days) with regard to MACCE (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-2.35), all-cause death (OR = 2.09, 95% CI 0.34-7.66), MI (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.19-2.95), CVE (OR = 4.45, 95% CI 0.39-19.16), and TVR (OR = 6.99, 95% CI 0.17-39.39). However, OPCAB had lower MACCE than HCR (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.00-0.95). In midterm (1 year and 3 year), in comparison with HCR, PCI had higher all-cause death (OR = 5.66, 95% CI 0.00-13.88) and CVE (OR = 4.40, 95% CI 0.01-5.68), and lower MI (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.86), TVR (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.05-2.26), and thus the MACCE (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.35). Off-pump CABG presented a better outcome than HCR with significant lower MACCE (OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.01-0.68). Surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities showed that HCR may be the superior strategy for MVD and LMCA disease when regarded to MACCE (SUCRA = 0.84), MI (SUCRA = 0.76) in short term, and regarded to MACCE (SUCRA = 0.99), MI (SUCRA = 0.94), and CVE (SUCRA = 0.92) in midterm.Hybrid coronary revascularization seemed to be a feasible and acceptable option for treatment of LMCA disease and MVD. More powerful evidences are required to precisely evaluate risks and benefits of the 3 therapies for patients who have different clinical characteristics.