Literature DB >> 33961042

In patients with multi-vessel coronary artery diseases, does hybrid revascularization provide similar outcomes to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting?

Perry Maskell1, Catherine Graham2, Lydia Roberts2, Amer Harky3.   

Abstract

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: In [patients with multivessel coronary artery diseases (CAD)] is [hybrid revascularization (HCR)] equal to [coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)] in regard to [mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and target vessel revascularization (TVR)]? Three-hundred and fifty-five papers were found using the reported search, of which 8 represented the best evidence to answer the question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. The studies included 4 observational studies, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 meta-analysis. The meta-analysis consisted of predominantly observational data with 1 randomized controlled trial and suggested non-significant differences in all major clinical outcomes. The observational studies generally cited benefit towards hybrid revascularization on the basis of equivalent major clinical outcomes rates compared to coronary artery bypass grafting, yet favourable in-hospital outcomes. One randomized controlled trial provided robust evidence of equivalent 5-year outcomes; however, the others were insufficiently powered for an effective comparison. There is a paucity of robustly designed studies to answer our clinical question effectively, given hybrid procedures are not routine in clinical practice. On the basis of mostly observational and small randomized cohorts with relatively short follow-up intervals, we conclude that current evidence suggests similar mid-term rates of major clinical outcomes after hybrid revascularization and coronary artery bypass grafting. However, without longer-term follow-up, the comparison of the two techniques, particularly relating to repeat revascularization, is still very much uncertain.
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coronary artery; Coronary interventions; Outcomes; Surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33961042      PMCID: PMC8691563          DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivab107

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg        ISSN: 1569-9285


  9 in total

1.  Towards evidence-based medicine in cardiothoracic surgery: best BETS.

Authors:  Joel Dunning; Brian Prendergast; Kevin Mackway-Jones
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2003-12

2.  Hybrid Coronary Revascularization vs Complete Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Sabrina Nolan; Kristian B Filion; Renee Atallah; Emmanuel Moss; Pauline Reynier; Mark J Eisenberg
Journal:  J Invasive Cardiol       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 2.022

3.  Late clinical outcomes of myocardial hybrid revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting for complex triple-vessel disease: Long-term follow-up of the randomized MERGING clinical trial.

Authors:  Vinicius Esteves; Marco A P Oliveira; Fernanda S Feitosa; José Mariani; Carlos M Campos; Ludhmila A Hajjar; Luiz A Lisboa; Fabio B Jatene; Roberto K Filho; Pedro A Lemos Neto
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Authors:  Vincenzo Giambruno; Philip Jones; Feras Khaliel; Michael W Chu; Patrick Teefy; Kumar Sridhar; Cristina Cucchietti; Rebecca Barnfield; Bob Kiaii
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2018-03-20       Impact factor: 4.330

5.  Long-term survival in triple-vessel disease: Hybrid coronary revascularization compared to contemporary revascularization methods.

Authors:  Craig Basman; Jonathan M Hemli; Michael C Kim; Karthik Seetharam; Derek R Brinster; Luigi Pirelli; Chad A Kliger; S Jacob Scheinerman; Varinder P Singh; Nirav C Patel
Journal:  J Card Surg       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 1.620

6.  Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in Selected Patients With Multivessel Disease: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes of the Prospective Randomized Pilot Study.

Authors:  Mateusz Tajstra; Tomasz Hrapkowicz; Michał Hawranek; Krzysztof Filipiak; Marek Gierlotka; Marian Zembala; Mariusz Gąsior; Michael Oscar Zembala
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 11.195

7.  Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of two-vessel coronary artery disease with proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis.

Authors:  Jiapei Qiu; Pengxiong Zhu; Zixiong Liu; Hong Xu; Jun Liu; Qiang Zhao
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Comparative Effectiveness Analysis With Long-Term Follow-up.

Authors:  Ali Hage; Vincenzo Giambruno; Philip Jones; Michael W Chu; Stephanie Fox; Patrick Teefy; Shahar Lavi; Daniel Bainbridge; Christopher Harle; Ivan Iglesias; Woijtecj Dobkowski; Bob Kiaii
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 5.501

9.  Randomized Clinical Trial of Surgical vs. Percutaneous vs. Hybrid Revascularization in Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Residual Myocardial Ischemia and Clinical Outcomes at One Year-Hybrid coronary REvascularization Versus Stenting or Surgery (HREVS).

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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.