Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of the internal thoracic artery flow dissected by video endoscopy or conventional technique

Purpose:

To compare the blood flow in the internal thoracic artery when dissected endoscopically in a conventional manner, in addition to develop a reliable experimental training model for the surgical team.

Methods:

Paired experimental study. Ten pigs were operated and had both internal thoracic arteries dissected, the right with a conventional technique and the left by video endoscopy. The main outcomes to be studied were flow, length, and time of dissection of each vessel.

Results:

Blood flow measurements were performed with mean heart rate of 100 ± 16 bpm and mean arterial pressure of 89.7 ± 13 mm Hg. The mean blood flow of endoscopic dissection of the internal thoracic artery was 170.2 ± 66.3 mL/min and by direct view was 180.8 ± 70.5 (p = 0.26). Thus, there was no statistically significant difference between the flows, showing no inferiority between the methods.

Conclusions:

The minimally invasive dissection of the internal thoracic artery was shown to be not inferior to the dissection by open technique in relation to the blood flow in the present experimental model. In addition, the model that we replicated was shown to be adequate for the development of the learning curve and improvement of the endoscopic abilities.

Robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting: current knowledge and future perspectives

Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) and totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB) are the two existing strategies for robotic-assisted, surgical myocardial revascularization. In this review, we summarize the wide evidence available in the literature regarding the benefits of these two procedures, and detail the technical skills required to master robotic coronary surgery techniques.

Five-Year Outcomes After Hybrid Coronary Revascularization: A Single Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines both surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization procedures. It offers a minimally invasive strategy for multivessel coronary artery disease and combines the advantages of both. However, quantitative long-term patency and clinical outcomes remain understudied. The objective of this study was to assess clinical outcomes and graft and stent patency at 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

From January 2004 to January 2015, 120 patients were enrolled in this study. They underwent robotically assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting of left internal thoracic artery (LITA) to the left descending artery (LAD) and percutaneous coronary intervention of non-LAD vessels. Primary outcome was graft (LITA-LAD) patency determined at 5 years of follow-up, assessed by computed tomography angiography and rest and stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS-MIBI). Secondary outcomes were stent patency and major adverse major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Also, freedom from recurrence of angina was assessed.

RESULTS

At follow-up, 18 of 120 patients (15%) had died (in 5 patients the cause of death was cardiovascular). Among survivors, follow-up was achieved in 83 of 102 (81%). In 76 of 83 patients (92%) there was a patent LITA-LAD graft and in 75 of 83 (90%) a patent stent was demonstrated. MACCE occurred in 36 of 120 patients (30%). Freedom from recurrence of angina occurred in 92 of 120 patients (77%).

CONCLUSIONS

HCR is a safe and a promising procedure. It provides a minimally invasive approach and results in complete revascularization with good 5-year patency and clinical outcomes.

A Practical Approach to Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

Combined surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization, ie, hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) consists of surgical left internal mammary artery (LIMA) bypass to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and percutaneous revascularization of other diseased coronary arteries. Developed as a 1-stage procedure, HCR has not been widely adopted by the cardiovascular community. The recommended minimally invasive approach through a small left thoracotomy incision is technically demanding, and same-day percutaneous revascularization requires a hybrid operating room that is not available in most hospitals. In this review, we consider present HCR protocols, barriers to widespread adoption of HCR, and we give special attention to the surgical approach for the LIMA graft to the LAD and the timing of percutaneous revascularization. We conclude that grafting the LIMA to the LAD through a median sternotomy approach and delaying the percutaneous revascularization may facilitate the widespread use of HCR in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and a low to intermediate Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score.

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.

Advances in revascularization of the left coronary artery

Ischaemic heart disease is the most common cardiovascular disease worldwide, and it contributes to a significant source of morbidity and mortality internationally. It can be asymptomatic for many years and present suddenly with acute coronary syndrome or can be progressive with angina and eventual acute myocardial infarction. Diseases of the left coronary system can be drastic and fatal if not managed correctly. With ongoing increase in the practice of percutaneous intervention; patient demographics for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting surgery have more risk factors than before. Conventional bypass surgery has also evolved to include minimally invasive and hybrid techniques. Although some evidence supports each approach, controversies remain.

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

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) treats multivessel coronary artery disease by combining a minimally invasive surgical approach to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left anterior descending diseased coronary arteries. The objective of this study is to compare HCR and conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery medium-term outcomes.

METHODS

Data from multivessel disease patients in New York's cardiac surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention registries in 2010 to 2016 were used to compare mortality and repeat revascularization rates for HCR and conventional CABG after using propensity matching to reduce selection bias.

RESULTS

There was a total of 303 HCR (0.80%) patients and 37 556 conventional CABG patients after exclusions. After propensity matching, the respective median follow-up times were 3.72 years and 3.76 years. There was no difference between HCR and conventional CABG in survival at 6 years (80.9% versus 85.8%%, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [0.90-2.31]), but HCR had higher mortality excluding deaths during the first year (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.88 [1.10-3.23]). Conventional CABG patients were more likely to be free from repeat revascularization at 6 years than HCR patients (88.2% versus 76.6%; hazard ratio, 2.22 [1.44-3.42]).

CONCLUSIONS

HCR is rarely performed for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. HCR and conventional CABG had no different 6-year mortality rates, but HCR had higher mortality after 1 year and higher rates of subsequent revascularization that were caused by both the need for repeat revascularization in the left anterior descending artery where minimally invasive CABG was performed, and in the coronary arteries where percutaneous coronary intervention was performed. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

Angiographic patency after robotic beating heart totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting facilitated by automated distal anastomotic connectors

OBJECTIVES

Robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB) on the beating heart has been facilitated in our experience using distal coronary anastomotic connectors. In this study, we retrospectively reviewed graft patency in all robotic TECAB patients who underwent formal angiography at our current institution over a 5-year period.

METHODS

Between July 2013 and June 2018, 361 consecutive patients underwent robotic beating-heart TECAB. Of these patients, 121 had a follow-up angiogram, which assessed graft patency. Eighty-four patients had an angiogram as part of planned hybrid procedures and 37 patients underwent an unplanned angiogram for clinical indications. Retrospective analysis of angiographic patency and clinical outcomes was performed.

RESULTS

The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 1.8%. Single-vessel bypass was performed in 40 (33%) patients and multivessel grafting in 81 (67%). Average flow (ml/min) and pulsatility index in the grafts was 74.7 ± 39.1 and 1.42 ± 0.52, respectively. The number of grafts evaluated was 204 (130 left internal mammary artery and 74 right internal mammary artery grafts). The median time to angiography was 1.0 and 16.0 months and graft patency was 98% and 91% in the hybrid and non-hybrid groups, respectively. Overall graft patency was 95.6% (left internal mammary artery = 96%; right internal mammary artery = 93%). Left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft patency was 97%. Clinical follow-up was available for 316 (88%) patients at mean 22.5 ± 15.1 months. Freedom from major adverse cardiac events at 2 years was 92%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this consecutive series of patients undergoing formal angiography after robotic single and multivessel TECAB, we found satisfactory graft patency and 2-year clinical outcomes. Longer-term follow-up is warranted.

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Comparative Effectiveness Analysis With Long-Term Follow-up

Background Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involves the integration of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention to treat multivessel coronary artery disease. Our objective was to perform a comparative analysis with long-term follow-up between HCR and conventional off-pump CABG. Methods and Results We compared all double off-pump CABG (n=216) and HCR (n=147; robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct CABG of the left internal thoracic artery to the left anterior descending artery and percutaneous coronary intervention to one of the non-left anterior descending vessels) performed at a single institution between March 2004 and November 2015. To adjust for the selection bias of receiving either off-pump CABG or HCR, we performed a propensity score analysis using inverse-probability weighting. Both groups had similar results in terms of re-exploration for bleeding, perioperative myocardial infarction, stroke, blood transfusion, in-hospital mortality, and intensive care unit length of stay. HCR was associated with a higher in-hospital reintervention rate (CABG 0% versus HCR 3.4%; P=0.03), lower prolonged mechanical ventilation (>24 hours) rate (4% versus 0.7%; P=0.02), and shorter hospital length of stay (8.1±5.8  versus 4.5±2.1 days; P<0.001). After a median follow-up of 81 (48-113) months for the off-pump CABG and 96 (53-115) months for HCR, the HCR group of patients had a trend toward improved survival (85% versus 96%; P=0.054). Freedom from any form of revascularization was similar between the 2 groups (92% versus 91%; P=0.80). Freedom from angina was better in the HCR group (73% versus 90%; P<0.001). Conclusions HCR seems to provide, in selected patients, a shorter postoperative recovery, with similar excellent short- and long-term outcomes when compared with standard off-pump CABG.

Care of the Post-CABG Patient

An estimated 400,000 coronary artery bypass graft operations are performed annually in the United States. Saphenous vein grafts are the most commonly used conduits; however, graft failure is common. In contrast, left internal mammary artery grafts have more favorable long-term patency rates. Guidelines recommend aggressive secondary prevention. In the 2 decades following surgery, 16% of patients require repeat revascularization, and percutaneous coronary intervention accounts for 98% of procedures performed. Post-coronary artery bypass graft patients presenting with symptoms of acute coronary syndrome or progressive heart failure should undergo early coronary angiography given the high likelihood that such a presentation represents graft failure. Percutaneous coronary intervention in degenerated saphenous vein grafts is associated with embolization that may cause the "no-reflow phenomenon," which can be avoided with the use of embolic protection devices. Hybrid revascularization procedures are a promising emerging strategy to avoid the placement of vein grafts.

Hybrid Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Review and Current Evidence

OBJECTIVE

The role of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), which utilizes the combination of minimally invasive surgical coronary artery bypass grafting of the left anterior descending artery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-left anterior descending vessels to treat multivessel coronary artery disease, is expanding. We set out to provide a review of this technology.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of all minimally invasive hybrid operations performed at our institution from September 2004 to December 2018. An effective analysis comparing patients undergoing HCR vs off-pump or on-pump surgical coronary artery revascularization was undertaken using an adjusted analysis with inverse-probability weighting based on the propensity score. Outcomes that were assessed include death, myocardial infarction, stroke, atrial fibrillation, renal failure, requirement of blood transfusion, conversion to open procedure (in the hybrid group), length of stay in intensive care unit, and total length of stay in hospital. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. An up-to-date literature review of HCR complements this study.

RESULTS

Since 2004 a total of 191 consecutive patients (61.4±11.1 years; 142 males and 49 females) underwent HCR (robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass graft of the left internal thoracic artery to the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) and PCI of a non-LAD vessel) in a single- or double-stage fashion. Successful HCR occurred in 183 of the 191 patients (8 patients required intraoperative conversion to conventional coronary bypass). From our comparative analysis and literature review we found no significant difference between HCR and coronary artery bypass grafting groups with respect to in-hospital and 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidences suggest that HCR is a feasible, safe, and effective coronary artery revascularization strategy in selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.

Current landscape of hybrid revascularization: A report from the NCDR CathPCI Registry

BACKGROUND

Hybrid revascularization, combining percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), may be used differently across hospitals. How outcomes compare with multivessel PCI is unknown.

METHODS

We studied hybrid revascularization use in patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry from 2009 to 2017 who underwent PCI for multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) at 711 hospitals, excluding patients with prior CABG, acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction, emergency/salvage CABG, or PCI without stent placement. In-hospital mortality associated with hybrid revascularization versus multivessel PCI was compared using a multivariable logistic model.

RESULTS

Among 775,000 patients with multivessel CAD, 1,126 (0.2%) underwent hybrid revascularization and 256,865 (33%) were treated with multivessel PCI. Although 358 (50.4%) hospitals performed hybrid revascularizations, most (97.3%) performed <1 per year. Most patients (68.7%) treated with hybrid revascularization underwent CABG after PCI; only 79.4% of these patients were discharged on P2Y12 inhibitors. Patients who underwent hybrid revascularization were younger and more likely to have significant left main or proximal left anterior descending disease. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients treated with hybrid revascularization than multivessel PCI (1.5% vs 0.9%, P = .02), a difference that was not significant after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio = 1.54, 95% CI = 0.92-2.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid revascularization remains an infrequently used treatment modality for multivessel CAD. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was no different between hybrid revascularization and multivessel PCI; however, patients who underwent hybrid revascularization were less likely to be discharged on P2Y12 inhibitor therapy despite stent implantation.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of two-vessel coronary artery disease with proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis

Background

This study sought to compare clinical outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of two-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) including proximal LAD stenosis.

Methods

From January 2009 to December 2016, 52 patients of two-vessel CAD including proximal LAD stenosis underwent HCR at Rui Jin Hospital. Using propensity score methodology, these patients were matched with those in the OPCAB and PCI cohorts. The primary endpoint during follow-up was main adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

Results

The intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) and the hospital LOS were shorter in the HCR group than in the OPCAB group (ICU LOS: P<0.001; hospital LOS: P=0.027). The mean follow-up time was 59 months (interquartile range, 42 to 79 months). The 8-year freedom from MACCE of the HCR group was higher than that of the PCI group (P=0.008), but similar to that of the OPCAB group (P=0.893).

Conclusions

HCR provides favorable outcomes for selected patients with two-vessel CAD including proximal LAD stenosis.

Hybrid myocardial revascularization

Background

In patients with advanced coronary artery disease (CAD), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with improved long-term outcomes while percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with lower periprocedural complications. A new approach has emerged in the last decade that attempts to reap the benefits of bypass surgery and stenting while minimizing the shortcomings of each approach, hybrid myocardial revascularization (HMR).Three strategies for timing of the hybrid revascularization exists, each with their own inherent advantages and shortcomings: (1) CABG followed by PCI, (2) PCI followed by CABG, or (3) simultaneous CABG + PCI in a hybrid suite.

Studies

The results of the first randomized control trial comparing HMR (CABG first) and standard CABG, POL-MIDES (Prospective Randomized PilOt Study EvaLuating the Safety and Efficacy of Hybrid Revascularization in MultIvessel Coronary Artery DisEaSe), show HMR was feasible for 93.9% of patients whereas conversion to standard CABG was required for 6.1%. At 1 year, both groups had similar all-cause mortality (CABG 2.9% vs. HMR 2%) and major adverse clinical event (MACE)-free survival rates (CABG 92.2% vs. HMR 89.8%). Results of observational and comparative studies show that minimally invasive HMR procedures in patients with multivessel CAD carry minimal perioperative mortality risk and low morbidity and do not increase the risk of postoperative bleeding. The advantage they offer in comparison to classical surgical revascularization is indeed faster rehabilitation and patient's return to normal life.

Conclusion

Hybrid myocardial revascularization has been developed as a promising technique for the treatment of high-risk patients with CAD. Hybrid revascularization using minimally invasive surgical techniques combined with PCI offers to a part of patients an advantage of optimal revascularization of the most important artery of the heart, together with adequate myocardial revascularization in a relatively delicate way. Indeed, to patients with high operative risk of standard surgery, it offers an alternative which should be considered carefully.

Robotic Beating Heart Totally Endoscopic Coronary Artery Bypass in Higher-Risk Patients: Can It be Done Safely?

OBJECTIVE

Patients with a high Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery are known to have worse outcomes. Less invasive approaches have been shown to improve morbidity and mortality for these patients. In this study, we examined perioperative outcomes in higher-risk patients undergoing robotic totally endoscopic beating heart coronary artery bypass surgery.

METHODS

The STS predicted risk of mortality was reviewed for patients undergoing robotic totally endoscopic beating heart coronary artery bypass surgery at our institution between January 2013 and May 2017. We identified a higher-risk cohort (n = 50) and compared them to a lower-risk cohort (n = 220) during the same period. The higher-risk group was formed from patients with the 50 highest STS scores. Perioperative data were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

There were 50 patients in the higher-risk group (mean STS score = 7.05 ± 4.9, mean age = 73 years) and 220 patients in the lower-risk group (mean STS score = 0.89 ± 0.6, mean age = 64 years). The higher-risk group had significantly greater rates of renal insufficiency, peripheral vascular disease, and lower ejection fraction. The incidence of postoperative re-exploration for bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction, and prolonged ventilation was similar. Perioperative blood transfusion and hospital length of stay were greater in the higher-risk group. Mortality was lower in the higher-risk group (0% vs 1.8% P = 0.045). Cardiac-related mortality was similar at midterm follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that beating heart totally endoscopic beating heart coronary artery bypass surgery can be performed in patients with a higher STS predicted risk of mortality with excellent outcomes. Further studies are warranted to evaluate long-term results of totally endoscopic beating heart coronary artery bypass surgery in this challenging group of patients.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combining minimally invasive grafting of the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention has become a viable option for treating coronary artery disease. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a range of clinical outcomes and hospital costs.

METHODS

To identify potential studies, systematic searches were carried out in various databases. The key search terms included "hybrid revascularization" AND "coronary artery bypass grafting" OR "HCR" OR "CABG." This was followed by a meta-analysis investigating the need for blood transfusion, hospital costs, ventilation time, hospital stay, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, mortality, postoperative atrial fibrillation, renal failure, operation duration, and ICU stay.

RESULTS

The requirement for blood transfusion was significantly lower for HCR: odds ratio 0.38 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.31-0.46, P < .00001) as was the hospital stay: mean difference (MD) -1.48 days (95% CI, -2.61 to -0.36, P = 0.01) and the ventilation time: MD -8.99 hours (95% CI, -15.85 to -2.13, P = .01). On the contrary, hospital costs were more expensive for HCR: MD $3970 (95% CI, 2570-5370, P < .00001). All other comparisons were insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

In the short-term, HCR is as safe as conventional CABG and may offer certain benefits such as a lower requirement for blood transfusion and shorter hospital stays. However, HCR is more expensive than conventional CABG.

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.

Perioperative outcomes of off-pump minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting with bilateral internal thoracic arteries under direct vision†

OBJECTIVES

We previously introduced techniques to harvest and use the right internal thoracic artery in minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) via a single left thoracotomy for revascularization with bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA). We report our short-term outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive CABG using BITA and a single internal thoracic artery (SITA).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive CABG using BITA or SITA at a Japanese medical center between February 2012 and December 2015 were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative, intraoperative and 30-day postoperative outcomes were analysed. Perioperative data for the SITA cohort is presented to provide a context in which the outcomes of the BITA cohort can be evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 25 and 37 patients underwent BITA and SITA revascularization, respectively. The mean duration of the operation was longer in the BITA group than in the SITA group (265 ± 104 vs 336 ± 73 min). There were no deaths in the BITA group and one death in the SITA group. There were no strokes in either cohort, and new haemodialysis was required in one patient in each group. All BITA grafts were harvested without major complications and were all patent on computed tomography angiograms 1 week following the operations.

CONCLUSIONS

BITA can be safely harvested in a reproducible manner under direct vision via a small left thoracotomy. The potential advantages of minimally invasive CABG using BITA, although yet to be established, include a long-term survival benefit conferred by BITA grafts and elimination of the risk of sternal wound infection, in addition to the established advantages of minimally invasive coronary artery surgery. This approach has the potential for further optimization with hybrid revascularization strategies.

In multivessel coronary artery disease, a "state-of-the-art" randomized clinical trial of revascularization is needed

Based on this meta-analysis of primarily observational data, complete revascularization (CR) is associated with a reduced risk of death, MI, and repeat revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) as compared with incomplete revascularization (IR). Given the current state of evidence, the likelihood of achieving complete revascularization should influence whether PCI or CABG is the best strategy in patients with MVCAD. Given the lack of randomized trials in this area, more robust trial data will address the validity of these findings.

Is the Future of Coronary Arterial Revascularization a Hybrid Approach?

Objective

Hybrid coronary revascularization offers and combines the advantages of both surgical and percutaneous revascularization and eliminates at the same time the disadvantages of both procedures. The objective of this study was to assess graft and stent patency at 6 months, rate of bleeding, intensive care unit and hospital stay, rate of reintervention, and long-term clinical follow-up.

Methods

From March 2004 to November 2015, a total of 203 patients underwent robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass graft of the left internal thoracic artery to the left anterior descending artery and PCI of a non-left anterior descending vessel in a single or two stage, at three different centers. Patients underwent 6-month angiographic follow-up. The mean ± SD clinical follow-up was 77.82 ±41.4 months.

Results

Successful hybrid coronary revascularization occurred in 196 of the 203 patients. One hundred forty-six patients underwent simultaneous surgical and percutaneous intervention. Nineteen patients underwent PCI before surgery, and 38 patient underwent PCI after surgery. No in-hospital mortality occurred. The mean ± SD ICU stay was 1 ± 1 days and the mean ± SD hospital stay was 5 ± 2 days. Only 13.3% of the patients required a blood transfusion. Six-month angiographic follow-up has been performed in the 95 patients, and it demonstrated a left internal thoracic artery anastomotic patency of 97.9% and stent patency of 92.6%. A total of 77.8 ± 41.4-month clinical follow-up demonstrated 95.1% survival, 92.6% freedom from angina, and 90.7% freedom from any form of coronary revascularization.

Conclusions

Hybrid coronary revascularization seems to be a promising and safe revascularization strategy. It provides selected patients with an alternative, functionally complete revascularization with minimal surgical trauma and good long-term clinical outcomes.

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review

To minimize surgical morbidity in coronary artery bypass grafting, minimally invasive cardiac surgery has gained popularity. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting offers unique advantages compared to conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass or minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass in that it enables the surgeon to harvest and graft bilateral internal thoracic arteries via a small thoracotomy while being conducted completely off-pump. This review focuses on current evidence behind off-pump coronary artery bypass, multi-arterial revascularization, patient populations that would most benefit from bilateral internal thoracic artery minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting, the surgical technique, and early outcomes. By overcoming the perceived inability to utilize bilateral internal thoracic arteries in minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting, the new technique further expands the armamentarium of surgeons and cardiologists. Hybrid coronary revascularization with bilateral internal thoracic artery minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting further augments the appeal of the next generation of minimally invasive cardiac surgery.

Total Arterial Revascularization: Bypassing Antiquated Notions to Better Alternatives for Coronary Artery Disease

Total arterial revascularization is the leading trend in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). Adding to its superiority to vein conduits, arteries allow for a high degree of versatility and long-term patency, while minimizing the need for reintervention. This is especially important for patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease, as well as young patients. However, arterial revascularization has come a long way before being widely appreciated, with some yet unresolved debates, and advances that never cease to impress. In this review, we discuss the evolution of this surgical technique and its clinical success, as well as its most conspicuous limitations in light of accumulated published date from decades of experience.

Revascularization in stable coronary artery disease: a combined perspective from an interventional cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon

It is now half a century since the start of coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) with the first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) following just over a decade later. The relative merits of PCI vs. CABG for stable coronary artery disease (stable-CAD) have continued to be debated ever since and have been the focus of around 20 randomized trials and numerous registry studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The aim of this review is to identify areas of agreement, disagreement, and uncertainties in the role of PCI and CABG in patients with stable-CAD.

Developments in surgical revascularization to achieve improved morbidity and mortality

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains the main treatment modality for multivessel coronary artery disease and has consistently been demonstrated to have significantly lower rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in comparison to percutaneous coronary intervention. In this article we will explore the advances over time and the recent refinements in the techniques of surgical revascularization and how these contribute to the superior outcome profile associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. These include the current outcome status of coronary artery bypass grafting; the major landmark trials, registries and meta-analyses comparing coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention; the developments in coronary artery disease lesion classification; the techniques for the physiological assessment of coronary artery lesions; bypass grafting using arterial conduits; the role of off-pump coronary artery surgery; the outcomes of reoperative surgery; hybrid techniques for coronary revascularization; minimally invasive coronary artery surgery and finally robotic surgery.

A novel approach to ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR)

Ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) is a complicated medical condition with varying degrees of coronary artery disease and mitral regurgitation (MR). The traditional surgical treatment option for those with indications for intervention is coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) plus or minus mitral valve repair or replacement (MVR). Percutaneous coronary intervention, hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), and conventional CABG are three techniques available to address coronary artery disease (CAD). Percutaneous edge-to-edge repair, minimally invasive, and traditional sternotomy are accepted approaches for the treatment of MR. When taken in combination, there are nine methods available to revascularize the myocardium and restore competency to the mitral valve. While most of these treatment options have not been studied in detail, they may offer novel solutions to a widely variable and complex IMR patient population. Thus, a comparative analysis including an examination of potential benefits and risks will be helpful and potentially allow for more patient-specific treatment strategies.