Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Utilization and Comparative Outcomes

Current indications and surgical strategies for myocardial revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) accounts for more than 60% of congestive heart failure cases and is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Myocardial revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% aims to improve survival and quality of life and reduce complications associated with heart failure and coronary artery disease. The majority of randomized clinical trials have consistently excluded those patients, resulting in evidence primarily derived from observational studies.

MAIN BODY

We performed a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology in five stages: 1) formulating the research question; 2) locating relevant studies; 3) choosing studies; 4) organizing and extracting data; and 5) compiling, summarizing, and presenting the findings. This literature review covers primary studies and systematic reviews focusing on surgical revascularization strategies in adult patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or lower. Through an extensive search of Medline and the Cochrane Library, a systematic review was conducted to address three questions regarding myocardial revascularization in these patients. These questions outline the current knowledge on this topic, current surgical strategies (off-pump vs. on-pump), and graft options (including hybrid techniques) utilized for revascularization. Three independent reviewers (MAE, DP, and AM) applied the inclusion criteria to all the included studies, obtaining the full texts of the most relevant studies. The reviewers subsequently assessed these articles to make the final decision on their inclusion in the review. Out of the initial 385 references, 156 were chosen for a detailed review. After examining the full articles were examined, 134 were found suitable for scoping review.

CONCLUSION

The literature notes the scarcity of surgical revascularization in LVD patients in randomized studies, with observational data supporting coronary revascularization's benefits. ONCABG is recommended for multivessel disease in LVD with LVEF < 35%, while OPCAB is proposed for older, high-risk patients. Strategies like internal thoracic artery skeletonization harvesting and postoperative glycemic control mitigate risks with BITA in uncontrolled diabetes. Total arterial revascularization maximizes long-term survival, and hybrid revascularization offers advantages like shorter hospital stays and reduced costs for significant LAD lesions.

Minimally Invasive Isolated and Hybrid Surgical Revascularization for Multivessel Coronary Disease: A Single-Center Long-Term Follow-Up

INTRODUCTION

Some evidence suggests that surgical minimally invasive (MIDCAB) and hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) are safe and potentially effective at short-term follow-up. Data on long-term outcomes are more limited and inconclusive.

METHODS

Between February 2013 and December 2023, a total of 1997 patients underwent surgical coronary artery revascularization at our institution, of whom, 92 (4.7%) received left anterior mini-thoracotomy access (MIDCAB), either isolated (N = 78) or in combination with percutaneous coronary intervention (N = 14, HCR group).

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 75 months (range 3.1: 149 months), cardiac mortality was 0% while overall mortality was 3%, with one in-hospital mortality and two additional late deaths. Conversion to sternotomy happened in two patients (2.1%), and surgical re-explorations occurred in five patients (4.6%), of whom three for bleeding and two for graft failure. All patients received left internal mammary (LIMA) to left anterior descending artery (LAD) grafting (100%). In the HCR group, 10 patients (72%) showed percutaneous revascularization (PCI) after MIDCAB, showing PCI on a mean of 1.6 ± 0.6 vessels and implanting 2.1 ± 0.9 drug-eluting stents.

CONCLUSIONS

MIDCAB, in isolation or in association with hybrid coronary revascularization, is associated with encouraging short- and long-term results in selected patients discussed within a dedicated heart-team.

Comparing clinical outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization with open coronary artery bypass in patients with multi-vessels lesions

OBJECTIVES

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involves the use of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to treat the left anterior descending artery (LAD), and percutaneous coronary intervention to treat non-LAD vessels. We reported the results of a comparative analysis between HCR and off-pump CABG via sternotomy (OPCABG).

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collated from patients who underwent HCR or OPCABG for multivessel coronary artery disease between 2011 and 2022. Propensity score-based matching was performed to reduce the selection bias. The Comparisons of cardiac-related death, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and repeat revascularization were performed by Kaplan-Meier analysis or the Fine-Gray test.

RESULTS

After matching, the baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups with 91 patients per group. There was no significant difference in operative mortality rate (1.1% for HCR vs2.2% for OPCABG, p = 1.000). However, patients undergoing HCR required a significantly lower rate of blood product transfusions (p < .001) and experienced significantly fewer pulmonary complications than OPCABG patients (p < .001). At 10 years, the incidences of cardiac-related death, MACCE and repeat revascularization did not differ significantly between the two groups (9.5% vs11.5%, p = .277; 4.7% vs12.3%, p = .361; 1.2% vs2.5%, p = .914, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with multi-vessel lesions, HCR was comparable to OPCABG in long-term outcomes such as cardiac-related death, MACCE, and the durability of grafts. Additionally, HCR was better than OPCABG in perioperative outcomes. HCR may be an alternative therapy for OPCABG in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease.

Long-Term Outcomes After Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Meta-Analysis of Kaplan-Meier-Derived Data

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is an alternative option to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), but the long-term outcomes of HCR versus CABG remain unclear. We aimed to analyze the long-term outcomes after HCR and CABG for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease using meta-analysis. A systemic literature search of PubMed and EMBASE was performed from inception to March 2023. Studies reporting Kaplan-Meier curves with follow-up ≥1 year were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and repeat revascularization. In total, 13 studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 12 propensity-score matched observational studies) were analyzed. The mean follow-up period was 5.1 ± 3.1 years. HCR was associated with similar overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.36), significantly higher incidence of MACCEs (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.06), and repeat revascularization (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.64) compared with CABG. In phase-specific analysis, the mortality rate was similar, and the incidence of repeat revascularization was higher in HCR regardless of phases. The incidence of MACCEs was higher in HCR during the mid-term phase (1 to 5 years), but it was similar during the long-term phase (long-term: ≥5 years). In conclusion, despite the higher incidence of MACCEs and repeat revascularization compared with CABG, HCR offered a similar long-term survival. Even longer-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials with a large population are warranted to investigate the role of HCR for multivessel coronary artery disease.

Defining the Role of Anaortic Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

As the population ages and co-morbidities become more prevalent, the complexity of patients presenting for coronary artery bypass surgery is increasing. Cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamping in these patients carry increased risk and, indeed, in some patients, with ascending aortic disease, the risks are prohibitive. Total-arterial anaortic coronary artery surgery is a technique that provides complete surgical coronary artery revascularization without cardiopulmonary bypass and without manipulating the ascending aorta. The technique essentially eliminates the risk of cerebral embolization of aortic atheroma and aortic injury. Anaortic techniques are an essential skillset for coronary artery surgery centers treating higher-risk patients.

Usefulness of layer-specific strain for evaluating and predicting recovery of left ventricular myocardial function in patients undergoing hybrid coronary revascularization

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine if layer-specific strain (LSS) can be used to evaluate and predict left ventricular (LV) recovery in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) using speckle tracking echocardiography (STE).

METHODS

A total of 187 consecutive CAD patients who received HCR in our hospital were prospectively enrolled. 30 healthy individuals with matched age and gender were enrolled as a control group. Echocardiography was performed for CAD patients before and 1, 2, and 6 months after HCR. Comprehensive conventional and LSS echocardiography parameters were collected. LV recovery was defined as improvement in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) > 5% at 6-months follow-up compared with baseline. Logistic regression analysis was used to test the correlates of LV recovery. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the optimal cutoff value of correlates for predicting LV recovery.

RESULTS

LVEF and LV strain in CAD patients were significantly decreased compared with control subjects. Endocardial global longitudinal strain (Endo-GLS) improved significantly at 1-month follow-up (14.2 ± 1.6% vs. 13.8 ± 1.5%, P < 0.05), and LVGLS and global circumferential strain (GCS) improved significantly at 2-months follow-up. Multivariate regression revealed that Endo-GLS, GLS, and SYNTAX score before HCR were independently correlated to LV recovery. Endo-GLS had an optimal cutoff value of 13.2% for predicting LV recovery with sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 78%.

CONCLUSION

LV myocardial systolic function in CAD patients was impaired before HCR and significantly improved after HCR. Endo-GLS was independently correlated to and has optimal predictive value for LV recovery.

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.

Comparing patient outcomes following minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery vs. coronary artery bypass grafting: a single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This present research was designed for comparing coronary artery disease (CAD) patient outcomes following minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (MICS) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS

From 2014-2017, 679 CAD patients underwent MICS (n=281) or CABG (n=398) and were evaluated for the present study. Patient data were analyzed using 1:1 propensity score-matched assessment and a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model, and primary study achievements comprised major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death, heart failure (HF), revascularization, and stroke. The median follow-up period was 2.68 years.

RESULTS

CABG patients exhibited a trend towards higher cumulative overall rates of MACCEs at 2 years (CABG: 6.2% vs. MICS: 3.8%) and 4 years (CABG: 9.3% vs. MICS: 7.6%) [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-5.39 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.687], although this difference was not significant. No significant differences in 2- or 4-year cardiac death rates were observed between groups (CABG: 3.5%, 5.6% vs. MICS 2.8%, 2.8%; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.03-1.81 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.160). Further, there existed no discrepancies in rates of MI (P=1.000), HF (adjusted HR: 4.76; 95% CI: 0.01-6.40 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.996), stroke (adjusted HR: 9.58; 95% CI: 0.11-25.24 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.320), or repeated revascularization (adjusted HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 0.01-7.21 for CABG vs. MICS; P=0.631) when comparing these patient groups. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, patients that were male (adjusted HR: 5.28; 95% CI: 1.48-18.83; P=0.010) and cases with a history of previous MI epsiodes (adjusted HR: 3.20; 95% CI: 1.09-9.37; P=0.034) were found to be at a higher risk of MACCEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Follow-up data indicated that the MICS and CABG treatments could achieve similar outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

Prospective multicenter registry of hybrid coronary artery revascularization combined with non-saphenous vein graft surgical bypass and percutaneous coronary intervention using everolimus eluting metallic stents (PRIDE-METAL study)

The concept of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the advantages of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to improve the treatment of patients with complex multivessel disease. This study aimed to investigate a 1-year clinical follow-up of a prospective multicenter registry of HCR combined with non-saphenous vein graft surgical bypass and PCI using everolimus-eluting metallic stents (the PRIDE-METAL study). From June 2016 to June 2018, a total of 54 patients with multivessel coronary disease from six Japanese institutes were enrolled in this study. The primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization) at 1 year. Three patients declined before complete HCR, and two patients were lost by the 1-year follow-up. All-cause mortality at 30 days and at 1 year was 0% and 4.1%, respectively. The rates of myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, and MACE were 0% at 30 days, and 0%, 2.0%, 2.0%, and 8.2% at 1-year follow-up, respectively. No occlusion of arterial bypass graft at the 30-day follow-up was observed, and was observed in 1.7% at the 1-year follow-up. HCR was safe and feasible and associated with a low risk of MACE at the 1-year follow-up. Further validation in multicenter and randomized studies is needed.