Partha Sardar1, Amartya Kundu2, Michelle Bischoff3, Saurav Chatterjee4, Theophilus Owan1, Ramez Nairooz5, Jay Giri6, Michael E Halkos7, Henry Liberman8, John S Douglas8, Debabrata Mukherjee9. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas. 6. Cardiovascular Division, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 8. Clinical Research Unit, Division of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 9. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, Texas.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). BACKGROUND: HCR involves a combination of surgical and percutaneous techniques, which in selected patients may present an alternative to conventional CABG. METHODS: Databases were searched through June 30, 2016, and studies comparing HCR with CABG for treatment of MVCAD were selected. We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs with the random-effects model. The primary outcome of interest was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as a composite of all cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS: The analysis included 2,245 patients from 8 studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 7 observational studies). The risk of MACCE with HCR and CABG were 3.6% and 5.4%, respectively (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.24-1.16). Compared to CABG group, patients in HCR group had similar risk of all cause mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.38-1.88), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.31-1.64), stroke (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.23-1.20), and repeat revascularization (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.58-2.83). The need for postoperative blood transfusions (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.59) and hospital stay (weighted mean difference -1.20 days; 95% CI -1.52 to -0.88 days) was significantly lower in the HCR group. CONCLUSION: HCR appears to be safe, and has similar outcomes when compared with conventional CABG. HCR can be a suitable alternative to conventional CABG in select patients with MVCAD.
OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). BACKGROUND: HCR involves a combination of surgical and percutaneous techniques, which in selected patients may present an alternative to conventional CABG. METHODS: Databases were searched through June 30, 2016, and studies comparing HCR with CABG for treatment of MVCAD were selected. We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs with the random-effects model. The primary outcome of interest was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as a composite of all cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS: The analysis included 2,245 patients from 8 studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 7 observational studies). The risk of MACCE with HCR and CABG were 3.6% and 5.4%, respectively (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.24-1.16). Compared to CABG group, patients in HCR group had similar risk of all cause mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.38-1.88), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.31-1.64), stroke (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.23-1.20), and repeat revascularization (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.58-2.83). The need for postoperative blood transfusions (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.59) and hospital stay (weighted mean difference -1.20 days; 95% CI -1.52 to -0.88 days) was significantly lower in the HCR group. CONCLUSION: HCR appears to be safe, and has similar outcomes when compared with conventional CABG. HCR can be a suitable alternative to conventional CABG in select patients with MVCAD.
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: Dongjie Li; Yulin Guo; Yingdi Gao; Xiangguang An; Yan Liu; Song Gu; Xitao Zhang; Jiuchang Zhong; Jie Gao; Pixiong Su Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2021-12-17
Authors: Vladimir Ganyukov; Nikita Kochergin; Aleksandr Shilov; Roman Tarasov; Jan Skupien; Wojciech Szot; Aleksandr Kokov; Vadim Popov; Kirill Kozyrin; Olga Barbarash; Leonid Barbarash; Piotr Musialek Journal: J Interv Cardiol Date: 2020-01-03 Impact factor: 2.279