Randomized Clinical Trial of Surgical vs. Percutaneous vs. Hybrid Revascularization in Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Residual Myocardial Ischemia and Clinical Outcomes at One Year-Hybrid coronary REvascularization Versus Stenting or Surgery (HREVS)

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Robotic Coronary Bypass for Left Anterior Descending Artery Chronic Total Occlusion

Background

Both percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) and robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass (CAB) offer viable options for left anterior descending (LAD) chronic total occlusion (CTO) revascularization. Our study aims to compare long-term clinical outcomes associated with these 2 strategies.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we analyzed data from 273 patients diagnosed with LAD CTO who underwent either PCI (n = 129) or CAB (n = 144) at a single institution. Long-term follow-up was available for 96 PCI and 125 CAB patients. We employed Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test to conduct cumulative survival analyses free of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cumulative survival, survival free of myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization.

Results

In the study cohort, patients who underwent PCI exhibited a higher prevalence of comorbidities including diabetes (48.9% vs 24.6%; P < .001), lower ejection fraction (44 ± 14 vs 52 ± 10; P < .001), prior heart failure (36.6% vs 22.2%; P = .02), and prior bypass surgery (16% vs 0, P < .001). PCI to non-LAD vessels was performed as part of initial complete revascularization in 40.3% of PCI and 40.6% of CAB patients. Upon a median 3.4 years of follow-up, CAB patients had significantly higher rates of survival free of MACE compared to PCI patients (unadjusted hazard ratio, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.13-5.03). Although PCI patients had similar unadjusted mortality, they experienced higher myocardial infarction and repeat revascularizations compared to CAB. However, the risk of repeat revascularization was attenuated after adjusting for prior bypass, diabetes, and ejection fraction.

Conclusions

Among patients with LAD CTO, those undergoing robotic-assisted CAB had a higher 5-year overall survival free of MACE compared to those who underwent PCI. This discrepancy in outcomes can be attributed in part to the greater burden of comorbidities among PCI patients.

Alternative Approaches to Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, How Do They Compare?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Severe symptomatic CAD is treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Alternative CABG (ACABG) approaches including thoracotomy, off-pump, total endoscopic, and robotic-assisted CABG are increasing in prevalence to address the increased early risk of CABG. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to review the contemporary literature comparing outcomes after ACABG and PCI. Pubmed, Medline, and Embase were systematically searched by 2 authors for articles comparing the outcomes after ACABG and PCI. A total of 1154 articles were screened, and 11 were included in this review. The RevMan 5.4 software was used to perform a meta-analysis of the pooled data. Individual studies found rates of long-term survival, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization either favored ACABG or did not differ significantly. Pooled estimates of the compiled data identified rates of MACCE, MI, and repeat revascularization favored ACABG. The results of this review demonstrated the favorable rates of long-term mortality, MACCE, MI, and repeat revascularization for ACABG in addition to similar short-term mortality and stroke when compared with PCI. Advancement of both CABG and PCI continues to improve patient outcomes. With the increasing prevalence of ACABG, similar studies will need to be undertaken with further direct comparisons between ACABG and PCI. Finally, hybrid revascularization should continue to be explored for its combined benefits of long-term outcomes, short-term safety, and ability to achieve complete revascularization.

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.

The Current State of Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive surgical approach with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Despite decades of use, widespread acceptance has been limited. In this review, we conduct a comparative assessment of HCR in relation to traditional coronary artery bypass graft surgery and multivessel PCI. Although large-scale randomized data are still lacking, numerous studies have demonstrated that HCR may offer benefits regarding resource utilization and short-term morbidity while delivering comparable mid- and long-term survival compared with traditional bypass surgery. Compared with PCI, HCR may offer similar periprocedural morbidity while mitigating the need for repeat revascularization by providing a surgical arterial bypass graft to the left anterior descending artery.

Comparative Efficacy of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in the Treatment of Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recent Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is a major global health issue and a leading cause of death. This study compares the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the management of IHD, focusing on their impact on revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), and post-procedural stroke. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of PCI and CABG in treating IHD based on an exhaustive literature review of the past 5 years, emphasizing recent advancements and outcomes in IHD management.

Methods

A comprehensive literature review analyzed 32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. The study specifically assessed the incidences of revascularization, stroke, and MI in patients treated with either PCI or CABG. The comparison between CABG and PCI exclusively focused on lesions with a SYNTAX score exceeding 32.

Results

Our findings highlight CABG's significant efficacy over PCI in reducing revascularization and MI. The aggregated Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) value for revascularization was 1.85 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.65 - 2.07), signifying CABG's advantage. Additionally, CABG demonstrated superior performance in diminishing MI occurrences (M-H = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.13 - 6.53). In contrast, PCI was more effective in reducing stroke (M-H = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.10).

Conclusion

The study confirms CABG's superiority in reducing revascularization and MI in IHD patients, highlighting PCI's effectiveness in reducing stroke risk. These findings underscore the importance of personalized treatment strategies in IHD management and emphasize the need for ongoing research and evidence-based guidelines to aid in treatment selection for IHD patients.

Need for repeat revascularisation in hybrid coronary revascularisation vs. percutaneous coronary intervention

Hybrid coronary revascularisation (HCR), being a treatment path combining both coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) approaches, offers the advantages of both methods in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease. Since available literature provides few studies comparing the need for repeat revascularisation (RR) after HCR in comparison to PCI, our review aimed at summarising the latest data on this topic from the last 5 years (2018-2023). The search was conducted within the PubMed and Embase databases, followed by application of inclusion and exclusion criteria and providing a summary of data and characteristics of eligible studies. On the basis of 7 records included in the final analysis, RR and/or follow-up target vessel revascularisation (TVR) were significantly less frequently required in the case of HCR than in PCI in 3 out of 7 records, whereas the remaining four provided no significant differences in analysed rates between the 2 therapeutic pathways. When it comes to lowering the necessity for follow-up TVR and/or RR in a fraction of instances, HCR demonstrates a significant advantage over PCI. The complexity of outcomes associated with these therapies is emphasised by the fact that no statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 methods in the remaining 4 records.

Four case reports of left anterior descending restenosis treated via the internal mammary artery: A literature review

Objective

To analyse four cases of intervention via the internal mammary artery-anterior descending branch and provide and summarise the clinical treatment experience.

Methods

The clinical data of four patients with distal restenosis of a left anterior descending artery (LAD) anastomosis after left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-LAD bypass surgery, who were admitted to the Gansu Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases between March 2013 and April 2022, were retrospectively analysed and reviewed together with the relevant literature.

Results

Among the four patients, one was treated with intracoronary stenting via the internal mammary artery route, two were treated with intracoronary drug-coated balloon dilation (one of whom underwent fractional flow reserve [FFR] testing), and two underwent FFR testing (one of whom had a negative test result until the end of the procedure and continued to take medication during follow-up; the other patient had a positive result and further interventions). There were no deaths or postoperative complications in the group, and the patients were followed up for 4 months to 9 years, with good long-term outcomes.

Conclusion

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) via the internal mammary artery route is safe and effective, and patients with anastomotic distal stenosis or anastomotic stenosis of LAD bypass anastomosis may be considered for PCI via the internal mammary artery route.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Hybrid vs. Surgical vs. Percutaneous Multivessel Coronary Revascularization: 5‑year Follow-up of HREVS Trial

Aim      To evaluate 5-year results of the HREVS (Hybrid REvascularization Versus Standarts) study.Material and methods  The study included 155 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who were randomized into 3 groups: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n=50), hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) (n=52) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=53) according to the consensus of the cardiology team on the technical and clinical feasibility of each of the three coronary revascularization strategies. The primary endpoint of the study was residual ischemia 12 months after revascularization according to data of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) over 5 years of follow-up, which included all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and clinically determined repeat myocardial revascularization.Results Baseline characteristics of patients did not differ between study groups. Median residual ischemia determined by SPECT data after 12 months was not statistically significantly different in the CABG, HCR and PCI groups: 6.7 [4.6; 8.8]%, 6.4 [4.3; 8.5]% and 7.9 [5.9; 9.8]%, respectively (p=0.45). Mean follow-up period was 76.5 months (at least 60 months). There were no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality between the CABG, HCR and PCI groups, 10.6, 12.8 and 8.2 %, respectively (p=0.23). Statistically significant differences between the groups of CABG, HCR and PCI in the incidence of myocardial infarction (12.8; 8.5 and 16.3 %; p=0.12), stroke (4.2; 6.4 and 10.2 % ; p=0.13), repeat revascularization for clinical indications (23.4; 23.4 and 34.7 %; p=0.11) were not observed either. However, the cumulative 5-year MACCE value was similar in the HCR group and the CABG group but significantly lower than in the PCI group (51.1, 51.1 and 69.4 %, respectively; p = 0.03).Conclusion      HCR that combines advantages of PCI and CABG is a promising strategy for coronary revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease. HCR demonstrates satisfactory long-term results comparable to those of CABG but superior to PCI. To confirm the safety and efficacy of HCR, a large multicenter study is required that would have a sufficient power to evaluate clinical endpoints.

Evaluation of the effect of simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization on postoperative bleeding and renal function: A comparison study with minimally invasive direct off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVES

The present study sought to compare postoperative bleeding and renal function in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) and minimally invasive direct off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCABG).

METHODS

The study retrospectively collected the data of 594 consecutive patients who underwent simultaneous HCR and 351 patients who underwent MIDCABG with planned staged HCR (MIDCABG first, then elective percutaneous coronary intervention) in Fuwai Hospital from June 2007 to December 2020. A total of 317 pairs of patients who were matched in a 1:1 ratio with propensity score matching were enrolled in this study. Bleeding and changes in renal function were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Compared with patients who underwent MIDCABG, patients who underwent simultaneous HCR had significantly greater chest tube drainage on the day of the operation (492.7 ± 282.4 mL vs 441.0 ± 261.9 mL; P = .023), but no significant difference was detected in the total amount during the postoperative period (788.8 ± 458.9 mL vs 753.3 ± 409.8 mL; P = .74). The differences in re-exploration for bleeding (0.3% vs 1.6%; P = .13), blood transfusion (18.9% vs 16.4%; P = .13), acute kidney injury (23.3% vs 18.6%; P = .53), and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (including all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeated revascularization) (2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .67) between the 2 groups did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with MIDCABG, simultaneous HCR (MIDCABG first, instant percutaneous coronary intervention) did not increase postoperative bleeding or the incidence of acute kidney injury.

Minimal-Access Coronary Revascularization: Past, Present, and Future

Minimal-access cardiac surgery appears to be the future. It is increasingly desired by cardiologists and demanded by patients who perceive superiority. Minimal-access coronary artery revascularisation has been increasingly adopted throughout the world. Here, we review the history of minimal-access coronary revascularization and see that it is almost as old as the history of cardiac surgery. Modern minimal-access coronary revascularization takes a variety of forms-namely minimal-access direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB), hybrid coronary revascularisation (HCR), and totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB). It is noteworthy that there is significant variation in the nomenclature and approaches for minimal-access coronary surgery, and this truly presents a challenge for comparing the different methods. However, these approaches are increasing in frequency, and proponents demonstrate clear advantages for their patients. The challenge that remains, as for all areas of surgery, is demonstrating the superiority of these techniques over tried and tested open techniques, which is very difficult. There is a paucity of randomised controlled trials to help answer this question, and the future of minimal-access coronary revascularisation, to some extent, is dependent on such trials. Thankfully, some are underway, and the results are eagerly anticipated.

Staged Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background

In acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, there is a subgroup of patients who are difficult to treat; these are patients with a complex left anterior descending artery (LAD) lesion or a non-LAD culprit lesion but who are not suitable for standard coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Staged hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), combining primary percutaneous coronary intervention on the non-LAD culprit lesion with CABG, represents an attractive solution.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective observational study to compare effectiveness and safety of HCR vs CABG alone. From December 6, 2016, to December 21, 2021, at our institution, 339 patients underwent urgent CABG with or without previous primary percutaneous coronary intervention; 65 received HCR (study group) and 274 received CABG alone (control group). Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days and at long-term follow-up. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital postoperative complications.

Results

Significant preoperative differences were detected in the mean EuroSCORE II: 3.4 (1.5-7.8) in HCR vs 2.5 (1.1-4.5) in CABG (P < .05). Patients in the CABG group needed more blood transfusions than patients in the HCR group (P = .004). Conversely, no other significant differences were detected for in-hospital postoperative complications. Survival analysis did not show significant differences between HCR and CABG, either to 30 days (hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.03-4.04]; P = .52) or to longer follow-up (maximum 5 years; hazard ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.09-1.68]; P = .21).

Conclusions

Our data support the safety and effectiveness of staged HCR in the scenario of ACS.

Assessment of the Graft Quality and Patency during and after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the gold standard procedure for multi vessels and left main coronary artery disease. The prognosis and survival outcomes of CABG surgery are highly dependent on the patency of the bypass graft. Early graft failure which can occur during or soon after CABG remains a significant issue, with reported incidences of 3-10%. Graft failure can lead to refractory angina, myocardial ischemia, arrhythmias, low cardiac output, and fatal cardiac failure, emphasizing the importance of ensuring graft patency during and after surgery to prevent such complications. Technical errors during anastomosis are among the leading causes of early graft failure. To address this issue, various modalities and techniques have been developed to evaluate graft patency during and after CABG surgery. These modalities aim to assess the quality and integrity of the graft, thus enabling surgeons to identify and address any issues before they lead to significant complications. In this review article, we aim to discuss the strengths and limitations of all available techniques and modalities, with the goal to identify the best modality for evaluating graft patency during and after CABG surgery.

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 techniques for myocardial regeneration: state of the art and future perspectives

Myocardium has a limited proliferative capacity, and adult hearts are considered incapable of regenerating after injury. A significant loss in the viable myocardium eventually diminishes the heart's ability to contract synchronously, leading to heart failure. Despite the development in interventional and pharmacological treatment for ischemic heart disease and heart failure, there is a significant number of highly symptomatic patients. For these individuals, treatments that stimulate myocardial regeneration can offer alleviation of dyspnea and angina and improvement in quality of life. Stem cells are known to promote neovascularization and endothelial repair. Various stem cell lines have been investigated over the years to establish those with the highest potential to differentiate into cardiomyocytes, including bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells, mesenchymal stromal cells, CD34+, CD133+, endothelial progenitor cells, and adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells. Stem cell studies were based on several delivery pathways: infusion into coronary vessels, direct injection into the injured region of the myocardium, and delivery within the novel bioengineered scaffolds. Acellular materials have also been investigated over the years. They demonstrate the therapeutic potential to promote angiogenesis and release of growth factors to improve the restoration of critical components of the extracellular matrix. This review summarizes hybrid cardiac regeneration treatments that combine novel bioengineering techniques with delivery approaches that cardiac surgeons can provide.

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.

One-stage hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease— Periprocedural and long-term results from the “HYBRID-COR” feasibility study

Background

The constant growth of interest in hybrid coronary artery revascularization (HCR) is apparent. Yet, few studies report outcomes of the one-stage HCR. Consequently, the status of such procedures is not adequately supported in clinical guidelines. The aim of this study was to report the safety, feasibility, and long term-outcomes of the one-stage HCR.

Methods and results

Patients were enrolled in the prospective one-stage hybrid coronary revascularization program (HYBRID-COR). They underwent a one-stage hybrid revascularization procedure while on double antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with Ticagrelor: endoscopic atraumatic coronary artery bypass grafting (EACAB) for revascularization of the left anterior descending (LAD) artery and percutaneous intervention in non-LAD arteries with contemporary drug-eluting stents. The composite primary endpoint included MACCE (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events: death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeated revascularization) in long-term observation. The study cohort consisted of 30 patients (68% male) with stable coronary artery disease (26.7%) and unstable angina (73.3%). Procedural success was 100%. No death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke were observed in the perioperative period. One patient (3.3%) required chest revision and blood transfusion due to surgical bleeding. Kidney injury was noted in two patients (6.6%). In a long-term follow-up (median; IQR: 4.25; 2.62–4.69 years), two patients (6.6%) underwent repeated revascularization and one patient (3.3%) died due to MI. The overall primary endpoint rate was 9.9%.

Conclusion

One-stage hybrid revascularization, on DAPT, is a feasible, safe, and efficient way of achieving complete revascularization in selected patients. The complication rate is low and acceptable. Further randomized trials are required.

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.

First report of totally robotically assisted hybrid coronary artery revascularization combining RE-MIDCAB and R-PCI: Case report

A 62-year-old man presents to the Cardiology Department with a history of angina on exertion. Invasive coronary angiography revealed a severe three vessels coronary artery disease. The "Hybrid Heart Team" successfully performed a fully robotically assisted hybrid revascularization combining robotically enhanced-minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass on the left anterior descending (LAD) and robotically assisted percutaneous coronary intervention on non-LAD lesions.

Revascularization strategies in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Treatment modalities for multivessel disease have rapidly evolved, yet the preferred strategy remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared outcomes after on-pump (ONCAB), off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or hybrid coronary revascularization. A comprehensive search for observational studies and randomized controlled trials published by August 2020 was performed. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted for early (<30 days) and late (>12 months) outcomes. A total of 119 studies were included (n = 700 458 patients). The main analysis was confined to 31 randomized controlled trials (n = 24 932 patients). PCI was associated with lower early mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.79] and stroke (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.60) rates compared with ONCAB, whereas a reduced risk of early myocardial infarction was observed with OPCAB compared with ONCAB (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.83). Late target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were both increased with PCI compared with ONCAB, OPCAB and hybrid coronary revascularization (by 127-203% and 59-64%, respectively), and late major adverse cardiac events were increased in PCI compared with ONCAB and OPCAB (by 64% and 59%). However, PCI was associated with a significantly lower risk of late stroke compared with ONCAB (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.89). Sensitivity analyses (i) including observational studies and (ii) limiting to studies with recent cohorts confirmed the findings of the main analysis. Surgical approaches for revascularization remain superior to PCI in patients with multivessel disease. Hybrid coronary revascularization might be viable for some patients, although more evidence from randomized controlled trials is warranted.

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.

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.

Trends in per-operative parameters and postoperative complications associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG); A four-year retrospective study

Objective:

To determine the patterns of per-operative parameters and early outcomes of patients that underwent CABG surgery during a four-year period.

Methods:

This is a cross-sectional descriptive study conducted in a tertiary care of hospital from November 2020 to January 2021. All the patients that underwent the isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedure were included in the study from June 2017 till June 2020. Data was collected on a data extraction form and stored in SPSS format which was analyzed for qualitative statistics keeping p<0.05 as significant. All the results were represented in the form of tables.

Results:

A total of 1,613 patients were operated upon for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) procedure during the study period with 1,222 (75.8%) males and 391 (24.2%) females. Dyslipidemia (71.8%) was the most common risk factor. The average perfusion time decreased only slightly (~1 minute) from 96.01 minutes to 95.07 minutes (2017 to 2020). This change however was not significant (p=0.301). The rate of Left Internal Mammary Artery (LIMA) use stayed relatively stable over the 4-year period fluctuating between 88.7% and 92.9% (p=0.360). The average initial ICU stay (in hours), drain at 12 hours and 24 hours stays almost the same. The rate of mortality peaked in 2018 (4.76%) and subsequently fell to 3.57% by 2020.

Conclusion:

More males underwent CABG surgery at this tertiary care hospital and the overall complication rate and per-operative parameters improved over the years. The non-risk stratified mortality in this study was found to be higher than developed nations.

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.

Clopidogrel Loading Dose 300 vs. 600 mg in Patients Undergoing One-Stop Hybrid Coronary Revascularization: A Prospective Single-Center Randomized Pilot Study

Background: The optimal loading dose of clopidogrel in one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) remains an “evidence-free” zone. This study aimed to compare the major bleeding and ischemic thrombotic events between different clopidogrel loading doses (300 vs. 600 mg) in one-stop HCR.

Methods: In this prospective, single-center, randomized, and parallel pilot study, 100 patients receiving one-stop HCR were randomly assigned to the clopidogrel loading dose 300-mg group or 600-mg group in a 1:1 ratio. Major bleeding events and composite in-hospital ischemic thrombotic and adverse complications were evaluated after the procedure.

Results: The results showed that postoperative mean chest drainage of the first 4 days and total drainage were comparable between the two groups. No differences were found in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) related bleeding (4 vs. 2%, P = 1), PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) life-threatening bleeding (20 vs. 26%, P = 0.48), and PLATO major bleeding (70 vs. 76%, P = 0.5) in the two groups. The composite ischemic thrombotic and adverse events were also similar.

Conclusions: In patients receiving one-stop HCR, clopidogrel 600 mg loading dose did not increase major bleeding events compared with 300 mg. More sufficient data is necessary to evaluate the potential benefits of 600 mg loading dose in one-stop HCR.

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.

What does complete revascularization mean in 2021? - Definitions, implications, and biases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary revascularization is known to be an excellent treatment for coronary artery disease. However, whether incomplete myocardial revascularization compromises long-term outcomes, as compared to complete revascularization (CR), remains contentious. Herein, we review the concept of and evidence on CR/incomplete revascularization (ICR) and discuss future perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

When possible, achieving CR in coronary artery bypass grafting is desirable; nonetheless, ICR is also a reasonable option to balance the therapeutic benefits against the risks.

SUMMARY

Although angiography-based assessment currently remains the standard of care, fractional flow reserve guidance may reduce the number of lesions requiring revascularization, which may be helpful for an appropriate surgical revascularization strategy. In particular, utilizing this approach may refine hybrid revascularization procedures, especially among high-risk patients.

The Year in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: Selected Highlights from 2021

This special article is the fourteenth in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Kaplan, and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series; namely, the research highlights of the past year in the specialty of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesiology. The major themes selected for 2021 are outlined in this introduction, and each highlight is reviewed in detail in the main body of the article. The literature highlights in the specialty for 2021 begin with an update on structural heart disease, with a focus on updates in arrhythmia and aortic valve disorders. The second major theme is an update on coronary artery disease, with discussion of both medical and procedural management. The third major theme is focused on the perioperative management of patients with COVID-19, with the authors highlighting literature discussing the impact of the disease on the right ventricle and thromboembolic events. The fourth and final theme is an update in heart failure, with discussion of diverse aspects of this area. The themes selected for this fourteenth special article are only a few of the diverse advances in the specialty during 2021. These highlights will inform the reader of key updates on a variety of topics, leading to improvement of perioperative outcomes for patients with cardiothoracic and vascular disease.

Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularisation Surgery: A Focused Review of the Available Literature

Minimally invasive coronary revascularisation was originally developed in the mid 1990s as minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting is a less invasive approach compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to address targets in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD). Since then, MIDCAB has evolved with the adoption of a robotic platform and the possibility to perform multivessel bypass procedures. Minimally invasive coronary revascularisation surgery also allows for a combination between the benefits of CABG and percutaneous coronary interventions for non-LAD lesions – a hybrid approach. Hybrid coronary revascularisation results in fewer blood transfusions, shorter hospital stay, decreased ventilation times and patients return to work sooner when compared to conventional CABG. This article reviews the available literature, describes standard approaches and considers topics, such as limited access procedures, indications and patient selection, diagnostics and imaging, techniques, anastomotic devices, hybrid coronary revascularisation and outcome analysis.

In patients with multi-vessel coronary artery diseases, does hybrid revascularization provide similar outcomes to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: In [patients with multivessel coronary artery diseases (CAD)] is [hybrid revascularization (HCR)] equal to [coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)] in regard to [mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and target vessel revascularization (TVR)]? Three-hundred and fifty-five papers were found using the reported search, of which 8 represented the best evidence to answer the question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The studies included 4 observational studies, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 meta-analysis. The meta-analysis consisted of predominantly observational data with 1 randomized controlled trial and suggested non-significant differences in all major clinical outcomes. The observational studies generally cited benefit towards hybrid revascularization on the basis of equivalent major clinical outcomes rates compared to coronary artery bypass grafting, yet favourable in-hospital outcomes. One randomized controlled trial provided robust evidence of equivalent 5-year outcomes; however, the others were insufficiently powered for an effective comparison. There is a paucity of robustly designed studies to answer our clinical question effectively, given hybrid procedures are not routine in clinical practice. On the basis of mostly observational and small randomized cohorts with relatively short follow-up intervals, we conclude that current evidence suggests similar mid-term rates of major clinical outcomes after hybrid revascularization and coronary artery bypass grafting. However, without longer-term follow-up, the comparison of the two techniques, particularly relating to repeat revascularization, is still very much uncertain.

Review of Contemporary Techniques for Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularization

Minimally invasive coronary revascularization techniques aim to avoid median sternotomy with its associated complications, while facilitating recovery and maintaining the benefits of surgical revascularization. The 3 most common procedures are minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting, totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass, and hybrid coronary revascularization. For a variety of reasons, including cost and technical difficulty, not many centers are routinely performing minimally invasive coronary revascularization. Nevertheless, many studies have assessed the safety and efficacy of each of these procedures in different clinical contexts. Thus far results have been promising, and with the evolution of procedural techniques, these approaches have the potential to redefine coronary revascularization in the future. This review highlights the current state of minimally invasive coronary revascularization techniques by exploring their benefits, identifying barriers to their adoption, and discussing future potential paradigms.

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.

Techniques and approaches for revascularisation of left heart coronary diseases

Coronary artery disease and its associated clinical sequelae are a significant medical burden to clinicians and patients. Severe coronary artery disease presenting in the context of acute myocardial ischaemia, or stable plaques causing chronic symptoms despite best conservative and pharmacological intervention, are often amenable to further intervention such as coronary artery bypass grafting. This procedure has been extensively compared to newer and less invasive techniques, such as percutaneous coronary intervention, and other minimally invasive procedures such as robotic or endoscopic techniques. This review summarises the current evidence on revascularisation of the left coronary artery system, with particular emphasis on key clinical endpoints of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and repeat revascularisation.

Reasons for Conversion and Adverse Intraoperative Events in Robotically Enhanced Minimally Invasive Coronary Artery Revascularization

OBJECTIVE

The transition from sternotomy access to minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with steep learning curves. This study reports the reasons for sternotomy conversions from robotically enhanced minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (RE-MIDCAB) and describes potential risk reduction strategies.

METHODS

The perioperative data of 759 RE-MIDCAB patients (mean age 65.9 ± 10 years, 25.5% female, 30.2% multivessel disease) operated between July 1, 2002 and November 30, 2018 were reviewed for the reasons of conversion and adverse intraoperative events. Hybrid revascularization was planned in 204 (26.9%) patients.

RESULTS

Sternotomy conversion occurred in 30 (4.0%) patients. Lung adhesions and unsuccessful single-lung ventilation prohibited safe RE-MIDCAB internal thoracic artery (ITA) harvesting in 11 (36.7%) and 1 (3.3%) patients, respectively. ITA dysfunction (n = 11, 36.7%) and inadequate target vessel visualization (n = 3, 10.0%) were among the anatomical reasons for conversions. Adverse intraoperative events included ventricle perforation (n = 1, 3.3%) and sustained ventricular arrhythmia (n = 1, 3.3%). The in-hospital mortality and mean length of hospitalization for sternotomy conversion were 3.3% (n = 1 of 30) and 13.4 ± 14.5 days, respectively. Perioperative morbidities included pneumonia (n = 4, 13.3%). Premorbid renal dysfunction predicted sternotomy conversion at the 5% level of significance.

CONCLUSIONS

RE-MIDCAB provides an attractive surgical platform for primary- or hybrid coronary artery procedures. The progressive increase in patient risk profiles, strict quality control, and focus on clinical governance require awareness of reasons that potentially contribute RE-MIDCAB to sternotomy conversion to ensure safe and sustainable programs.