Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for the Treatment of Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.05.090

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Volume 92, Issue 5, November 2011, Pages 1695-1702

Presented at the Forty-seventh Annual Meeting of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, San Diego, CA, Jan 31–Feb 2, 2011.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.05.090 Get rights and content

Background

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive (3-cm anterolateral thoracotomy), sternal-sparing, off-pump left internal mammary artery–left anterior descending (LIMA-LAD) coronary artery anastomosis with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to non-LAD coronary arteries. We compared outcomes of HCR versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD).

Methods

Between October 8, 2003 and April 23, 2010, 147 patients with multivessel coronary disease were treated with HCR at a US academic center. These were matched 4:1 to 588 contemporaneous patients treated with multivessel OPCAB by sternotomy using an optimal matching algorithm with 8 preoperative variables: age, gender, ejection fraction, presence of diabetes, myocardial infarction (MI), number of diseased vessels, left main coronary artery disease, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM) score. In-hospital major adverse events (MACCE) and the need for repeated revascularization during follow-up were compared between groups. All-cause mortality was determined using the Social Security Death Index (SSDI).

Results

Matching produced groups with similar coronary anatomy and statistically similar preoperative risk factors. The incidence of MACCE was similar between groups (3/147 HCR versus 12/588 OPCAB). During a median 3.2 years of follow up, the need for repeated revascularization was higher for HCR than for OPCAB (18/147 [12.2%] versus 22/588 [3.7%]; p < 0.001). The incidence of blood transfusion was higher for the OPCAB group. Estimated 5-year survival was similar between groups (OPCAB, 84.3% versus HCR, 86.8%; p = 0.61).

Conclusions

Hybrid coronary revascularization is a minimally invasive treatment for multivessel CAD. Although repeated revascularization was greater with HCR, both in-hospital and midterm outcomes were comparable with those of traditional OPCAB. Further investigation into the comparative effectiveness of this alternative strategy is warranted.

Section snippets

Material and Methods

This study used a matched cohort design to examine short-term and midterm outcomes between patients undergoing competing surgical approaches: OPCAB and hybrid revascularization. Hybrid procedures were defined as those in which a minimally invasive LIMA-LAD bypass was performed in combination with PCI to at least 1 major non-LAD coronary artery (right coronary artery or circumflex artery, or both). In all, 147 hybrid cases were identified querying the Emory University institutional Society of

Results

A total of 147 patients underwent hybrid coronary revascularization combining a minimally invasive LIMA-LAD bypass with PCI of non-LAD coronary vessels. These patients were matched 4:1 with contemporaneous OPCAB patients based on 8 preoperative variables. Patients were well matched with no significant differences with the exception of female gender, with more female patients in the hybrid group (20.2% standardized difference) (Table 1). According to unmatched variables there were no significant

Comment

To our knowledge, the current study represents 1 of the largest comparisons of HCR to conventional CABG. In this study, patients undergoing HCR had similar in-hospital mortality and midterm survival rates as those undergoing OPCAB. With the exception of a lower incidence of transfusion in the HCR group, other in-hospital outcomes were similar between groups. The incidence of repeated revascularization was higher in the HCR group compared with the OPCAB group. In smaller studies, both Kon and

References (27)

P.W. Serruys et al.
5-year clinical outcomes of the ARTS II (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study II) of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with multivessel de novo coronary artery lesions
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2010)
D.X. Zhao et al.
Routine intraoperative completion angiography after coronary artery bypass grafting and 1-stop hybrid revascularization results from a fully integrated hybrid catheterization laboratory/operating room
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2009)
Z.N. Kon et al.
Simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization reduces postoperative morbidity compared with results from conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
(2008)
B. Reicher et al.
Simultaneous “hybrid” percutaneous coronary intervention and minimally invasive surgical bypass grafting: feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes
Am Heart J
(2008)
D. de Canniere et al.
Combination of minimally invasive coronary bypass and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in the treatment of double-vessel coronary disease: two-year follow-up of a new hybrid procedure compared with “on-pump” double bypass grafting
Am Heart J
(2001)
T.A. Vassiliades et al.
Integrated coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents: immediate and seven-month outcome
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
(May 2006)
B. Kiaii et al.
Simultaneous integrated coronary artery revascularization with long-term angiographic follow-up
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
(2008)
C. Gao et al.
Hybrid coronary revascularization by endoscopic robotic coronary artery bypass grafting on beating heart and stent placement
Ann Thorac Surg
(2009)
D.M. Holzhey et al.
Minimally invasive hybrid coronary artery revascularization
Ann Thorac Surg
(2008)
L. Balacumaraswami et al.
Intraoperative imaging techniques to assess coronary artery bypass graft patency
Ann Thorac Surg
(2007)

H.B. Barner

Operative treatment of coronary atherosclerosis

Ann Thorac Surg

(2008)

J.G. Byrne et al.

Hybrid cardiovascular procedures

JACC Cardiovasc Interv

(2008)

M.S. Lee et al.

Meta-analysis of studies comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with drug-eluting stenting in patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease

Am J Cardiol

(2010)

Cited by (86)

Mastering the Learning Curve for Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
2023, Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Previous studies have evaluated the learning curve to achieve competency in robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) but have not identified thresholds for mastery. Robotic-assisted CABG is a minimally invasive alternative to sternotomy CABG. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of this procedure and to estimate the threshold for achieving mastery.
From 2009 to 2020, 1000 robotic-assisted CABG procedures were performed at a single institution. Robotic left internal mammary artery (LIMA) harvest followed by off-pump, LIMA–left anterior descending artery grafting using a 4-cm thoracotomy was performed. Short-term outcomes were obtained from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database, and long-term follow-up was obtained by telephone questionnaires from dedicated research nurses for all patients more than 1 year from surgery.
Mean patient age was 64 ± 11 years, Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 1.1% ± 1.5%, and 76% (758) of patients were men. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 6 patients (0.6%; observed-to-expected ratio, 0.53), 5 patients (0.5%) experienced a postoperative stroke, and postoperative LIMA patency was 97.2% (491/505). Mean procedure time decreased from 195 minutes to 176 minutes, and conversion to sternotomy decreased from 4.4% (22/500) to 1.6% (8/500) after 500 cases. Short-term outcomes suggested expertise was reached between 250 and 500 cases. Long-term follow-up was completed in 97% of patients (873/896) with a median follow-up of 3.9 years (interquartile range, 1.8-5.8), and the overall survival rate was 89% (777).
Robotic-assisted CABG can be performed safely with excellent results even during a surgeon’s early experience. However the learning curve to achieve mastery is longer than required to achieve competency, with a threshold of approximately 250 to 500 cases.
Minimally invasive surgery or stenting for left anterior descending artery disease – meta-analysis
2022, IJC Heart and Vasculature
Citation Excerpt :
PCI techniques have improved over the last years moving from BMS to third-generation DES. Secondary cardiovascular management changed with the introduction of more effective anti-thrombotic medications for better stent protection [44–47]. In the past two decades, the adoption of MIDCAB for isolated proximal LAD lesions or in combination with PCI (hybrid coronary revascularization) increased worldwide.
Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are both well-established minimally invasive revascularization strategies in patients with proximal left anterior descending (LAD) lesions. We aimed to evaluate the 20-years’ experience by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing MIDCAB versus PCI in adults with proximal LAD disease. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane on October 1st, 2021 for articles published in the year 2000 or later. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiac mortality, repeat target vessel revascularization (rTVR), myocardial infarction (MI), and cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Outcomes were analysed at short-term, mid-term, and long-term follow-up. Random effects meta-analyses were performed. Events were compared using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our search yielded 17 studies pooling 3847 patients. At short-term follow-up, cardiac mortality was higher with MIDCAB than with PCI (RR 7.30, 95% CI: 1.38 to 38.61). At long-term follow-up, MIDCAB showed a decrease in all-cause mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.93). MIDCAB showed a decrease in rTVR at mid-term follow-up (RR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.23) and at long-term follow-up (RR 0.25, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.38). MI and CVA comparisons were not significant. In conclusion, in patients with proximal LAD lesions, MIDCAB showed a higher short-term mortality in the RCTs, but the cohort studies suggested a lower all-cause mortality at long-term follow-up. We confirm a decreased rTVR at mid-term follow-up in the RCTs and long-term follow-up in the cohort studies.
Very Long-term Outcome of Minimally Invasive Direct Coronary Artery Bypass
2021, Annals of Thoracic Surgery
Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) is a well-established, low-impact surgical procedure for revascularization of the left descending coronary artery with the left internal mammary artery. This study aimed to evaluate safety, overall survival, and freedom from major adverse cardiocerebral-related events (MACCE) after 20 years of MIDCAB.
This study retrospectively collected a series of 141 patients who underwent MIDCAB between 1997 and 2017, to assess long-term outcome. A total of 133 patients who underwent revascularization of the left descending coronary artery with the left mammary artery through a full median sternotomy were analyzed.
Actuarial survival rates on a Kaplan-Meier curve were 100%, 95%, 90%, 83%, and 70% at 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, respectively. Freedom from MACCE, defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiac death, was 97%, 90%, 79%, 75%, and 61% at 1,5,10,15, and 20 years, respectively. At Cox multivariable analysis, age, cancer, and chronic renal insufficiency were found to be independent predictors affecting long-term survival, with a hazard ratio of 1.12 (P = .007), 17.63 (P < .001), and 5.16 (P = .03), respectively. The MIDCAB group showed a significantly shorter hospital length of stay and significantly lower rates of blood transfusions, cardiac-related events, and all-cause events compared with the full sternotomy group (P = .02 and P = .001, respectively).
The very long-term clinical outcome of MIDCAB is satisfactory in terms of survival and freedom from MACCE. MIDCAB significantly reduces hospital length of stay and blood transfusions when compared with full sternotomy bypass surgery on the left descending coronary artery and appears to improve prognosis in terms of cardiac-related events and all-cause events effectively.
The Hybrid Coronary Approach for Optimal Revascularization: JACC Review Topic of the Week
2020, Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Coronary revascularization is accomplished either by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with low risk of immediate complications, or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), with improved long-term, event-free survival attributable to use of the left internal mammary artery graft. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines both. The left internal mammary artery graft is done by sternal-sparing approaches or by robotic-assisted, endoscopic surgery. HCR reduces bleeding, ventilator time, and length of stay compared with traditional CABG. Compared with PCI, HCR offers the durability and survival advantages of the left internal mammary artery. The large-scale National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–sponsored, randomized Hybrid Trial (Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Trial) was initiated to examine whether HCR is superior to multivessel PCI. However, enrollment was suboptimal, triggering premature study discontinuation. HCR integrates the positive features of both PCI and CABG, albeit requiring 2 procedures rather than 1. Adequately powered randomized trials are required to evaluate the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of HCR compared with CABG and multivessel PCI alone.
Current landscape of hybrid revascularization: A report from the NCDR CathPCI Registry
2019, American Heart Journal
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.
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.
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).
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 in Selected Patients With Multivessel Disease: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes of the Prospective Randomized Pilot Study
2018, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
This study aimed to investigate the 5-year clinical follow-up of the HYBRID (Hybrid Revascularization for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease) trial.
The HYBRID trial, the only randomized study involving thorough analysis of outcome after the 2 procedures, suggested that hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is feasible in selected patients with multivessel coronary disease referred for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). There are currently no long-term outcome data from randomized trials in this setting.
A total of 200 patients with multivessel coronary disease referred for conventional surgical revascularization were randomly assigned to undergo HCR or CABG. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of all-cause mortality at 5 years.
Nine patients (4 in HCR and 5 in CABG group) were lost to the 5-year follow-up. Finally, 191 patients (94 in HCR and 97 in CABG group) formed the basis of this study. The groups were well balanced in terms of pre-procedural characteristics. All-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up was similar in the 2 groups (6.4% for HCR vs. 9.2% for CABG; p = 0.69). The rates of myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.30), repeat revascularization (37.2% vs. 45.4%; p = 0.38), stroke (2.1% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.35), and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (45.2% vs. 53.4%; p = 0.39) were also similar in the 2 groups.
HCR has similar 5-year all-cause mortality when compared with conventional coronary bypass grafting (Safety and Efficacy Study of Hybrid Revascularization in Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease; NCT01035567)

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Original articleAdult cardiacHybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for the Treatment of Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Section snippets

Material and Methods

Results

Comment

J Am Coll Cardiol

J Am Coll Cardiol

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

Am Heart J

Am Heart J

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg

Ann Thorac Surg

Ann Thorac Surg

Ann Thorac Surg

Ann Thorac Surg

JACC Cardiovasc Interv

Am J Cardiol

Original article
Adult cardiac
Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for the Treatment of Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease