ReviewHybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Introduction
Coronary artery disease is the major cause of death and disabilities in developed countries [1] and the methods of revascularisation for patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MCAD) include percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The former represents a non-surgical revascularisation strategy with some advantages over CABG, such as shorter procedural time and less complicated post-revascularisation recovery, including reduced infection risk and transfusion need [2,3]. In comparison, the latter is a surgical procedure commonly performed via a median sternotomy [4], or in rare cases via a thoracotomy [5], that requires admission to the cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) and an extended hospital stay. Despite the drawback of its invasiveness, in patients with MCAD, CABG results in improved survival and lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [6] and undoubtedly, the left internal mammary (LIMA) graft to the LAD has a significant beneficial effect on long-term survival after revascularisation secondary to excellent patency rates [7,8]. However, there remains a reliance on saphenous vein conduit to revascularize non-LAD territory disease, with significantly less effective patency rates compared with arterial conduit [9,10]. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is an innovative approach that combines the benefits of the LIMA to LAD anastomosis, usually via a mini thoracotomy, with PCI for other (non-LAD) diseased coronary arteries [11] with a beneficial effect on patient satisfaction and post-surgery recovery time [12]. Multiple comparative studies have evaluated the safety and efficacy of HCR [2], but contrasting data are available with regards the best surgical approach (HCR vs CABG) in patients with multi-vessel disease. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the short-term outcomes, mid-term survival rates and MACE rates of HCR with those of CABG for MCAD.
Section snippets
Methods
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [13] statement and registered with PROSPERO (reg.no. CRD42021256014). The data, analytic methods, and study materials will be made available to other researchers on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Quantity and quality of evidence
Searches returned 651 results from Pubmed, 600 results from Web of sciences and 323 results from the Cochrane library. After removing duplicate results, 1032 results remained and 29 studies were considered in the full-text review stage and 10 of those were included in the final analysis. An additional 6 studies were found by hand-searches and cross-search of the references. Finally, 16 studies were included in our analysis (Table 1, supplementary fig. 1) [12,[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23],
Discussion
The main finding of this meta-analysis is that HCR has comparable clinical outcomes to CABG in terms of complications and mid term survival and MACE rates, but with much shorter length of stay on ICU and in hospital and a reduced requirement for blood transfusion. Despite these findings, it must be noted that for the outcome of short-term mortality, the estimated effect had a wide confidence interval which reflects a lack a statistical power. The overall incidence rate of short term mortality
Conclusions
In conclusion, in patients with MCAD, HCR provides similar rates of mid-term survival and post-operative complications compared to standard CABG. Short term mortality rates, although not significantly different, are higher in HCR. HCR has an enhanced recovery with shorter ICU and reduced requirement for blood transfusion.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
References (40)
- et al.
Coronary bypass graft fate and patient outcome: angiographic follow-up of 5,065 grafts related to survival and reoperation in 1,388 patients during 25 years
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(1996) - et al.
Long-term patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary artery grafts after coronary artery bypass surgery: results from a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
(2004) - et al.
Simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization reduces postoperative morbidity compared with results from conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.
(2008) - 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) - et al.
Hybrid revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease
JACC Cardiovasc. Interv.
(2014) - et al.
Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass for the treatment of left main coronary stenosis
Ann. Thorac. Surg.
(2011) - et al.
Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients ≥65 years with multivessel coronary artery disease
Am. J. Cardiol.
(2014) - et al.
Comparison of 30-day outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery verus hybrid coronary revascularization stratified by SYNTAX and euroSCORE
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.
(2013) - et al.
Short- and intermediate-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization for double-vessel disease
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.
(2018) - et al.
Hybrid coronary revascularization in selected patients with multivessel disease: 5-year clinical outcomes of the prospective randomized pilot study
JACC Cardiovasc. Interv.
(2018)