Hybrid coronary revascularization: are we there yet?

Revascularization Modalities in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Review of the Current State of Evidence

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) stands as a leading global cause of mortality, underscoring the importance of effective prevention, early diagnosis, and timely intervention. While medications offer benefits to many patients, revascularization procedures such as coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and emerging hybrid approaches remain pivotal for ACS management. This review delves into the 2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines alongside an analysis of existing literature to shed light on the spectrum of revascularization methods. While both CABG and PCI demonstrate promising outcomes, the optimal choice between the two hinges on a comprehensive assessment of individual patient factors, anatomical complexity guided by advanced imaging, comorbidities, and age. The determination of whether to pursue culprit or total revascularization, as well as immediate or staged revascularization, is contingent upon various factors, including age, disease complexity, and clinical outcomes. This evidence-based decision-making process is orchestrated by a multidisciplinary heart team grounded in ongoing clinical evaluation. The primary objective of this review is to provide valuable insights into revascularization strategies and scrutinize the congruence of current guidelines with recent advancements in the field.

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 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.