Simultaneous Hybrid Coronary Revascularization vs Conventional Strategies for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract

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.