OBJECTIVE: The optimal treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease is not well established. Hybrid coronary revascularization by combining the left internal mammary artery-left anterior descending artery graft and drug-eluting stents in non-left anterior descending artery territories might offer superior results compared with sole coronary artery bypass grafting or sole percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the 30-day outcomes of 381 consecutive patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 301) vs hybrid coronary revascularization (n = 80). In a 2 × 2 matrix, the 2 groups were stratified by the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (≤32 vs ≥33) and the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (euroSCORE) (<5 vs ≥5). The composite endpoint (death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, low cardiac output syndrome) and secondary endpoints (worsening postprocedural renal function and bleeding) were determined. RESULTS: After stratification using the SYNTAX and the euroSCORE, the preoperative characteristics were similar within the 4 groups, except for the ≥33 SYNTAX/>5 euroSCORE. The hybrid coronary revascularization patients were older (77 vs 65 years, P = .001). The postoperative outcomes using combined SYNTAX and the euroSCORE stratification showed a similar rate of the composite endpoint for all groups except for patients with ≥33 SYNTAX/>5 euroSCORE (0% for the coronary artery bypass grafting group vs 33% for the hybrid coronary revascularization group, P = .001). An analysis of the secondary endpoint showed similar results across all groups, except for in the ≥33 SYNTAX/>5 euroSCORE group, in which bleeding (re-exploration for bleeding and transfusion >3 packed red blood cell units per patient) was 44% in the hybrid coronary revascularization group vs 11% in the coronary artery bypass grafting group (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid coronary revascularization is a safe alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in many patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, in high-risk patients with complex coronary artery disease (≥33 SYNTAX/>5 euroSCORE), coronary artery bypass grafting is superior to hybrid coronary revascularization.
OBJECTIVE: The optimal treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease is not well established. Hybrid coronary revascularization by combining the left internal mammary artery-left anterior descending artery graft and drug-eluting stents in non-left anterior descending artery territories might offer superior results compared with sole coronary artery bypass grafting or sole percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the 30-day outcomes of 381 consecutive patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 301) vs hybrid coronary revascularization (n = 80). In a 2 × 2 matrix, the 2 groups were stratified by the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score (≤32 vs ≥33) and the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (euroSCORE) (<5 vs ≥5). The composite endpoint (death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, low cardiac output syndrome) and secondary endpoints (worsening postprocedural renal function and bleeding) were determined. RESULTS: After stratification using the SYNTAX and the euroSCORE, the preoperative characteristics were similar within the 4 groups, except for the ≥33 SYNTAX/>5 euroSCORE. The hybrid coronary revascularization patients were older (77 vs 65 years, P = .001). The postoperative outcomes using combined SYNTAX and the euroSCORE stratification showed a similar rate of the composite endpoint for all groups except for patients with ≥33 SYNTAX/>5 euroSCORE (0% for the coronary artery bypass grafting group vs 33% for the hybrid coronary revascularization group, P = .001). An analysis of the secondary endpoint showed similar results across all groups, except for in the ≥33 SYNTAX/>5 euroSCORE group, in which bleeding (re-exploration for bleeding and transfusion >3 packed red blood cell units per patient) was 44% in the hybrid coronary revascularization group vs 11% in the coronary artery bypass grafting group (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid coronary revascularization is a safe alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting in many patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, in high-risk patients with complex coronary artery disease (≥33 SYNTAX/>5 euroSCORE), coronary artery bypass grafting is superior to hybrid coronary revascularization.
Authors: Ralf E Harskamp; Zhe Zheng; John H Alexander; Judson B Williams; Ying Xian; Michael E Halkos; J Matthew Brennan; Robbert J de Winter; Peter K Smith; Renato D Lopes Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Angela Lowenstern; Jingjing Wu; Steven M Bradley; Alexander C Fanaroff; James E Tcheng; Tracy Y Wang Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Karel M Van Praet; Markus Kofler; Timo Z Nazari Shafti; Alaa Abd El Al; Antonia van Kampen; Andrea Amabile; Gianluca Torregrossa; Jörg Kempfert; Volkmar Falk; Husam H Balkhy; Stephan Jacobs Journal: Interv Cardiol Date: 2021-05-19