Minimally Invasive CABG or Hybrid Coronary Revascularization for Multivessel Coronary Diseases: Which Is Best? A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.2499Keywords:
Minimally invasive coronary revascularization；hybrid coronary revascularization；meta-analysisAbstract
Objectives: Minimally invasive coronary revascularization (MICR) involves minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) and robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting (RCABG), and hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) aims to combine MICR/RCABG on left anterior descending (LAD) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) on non-LAD lesions. We performed a systematic review and metaanalysis to compare clinical outcome after MICR and HCR.
Methods: A metaanalysis was carried out through searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Medline for comparative studies evaluating the primary and secondary clinical end points.
Results: A systematic literature search identified 8 observational studies that satisfied our inclusion criteria, including being suitable for metaanalysis; the studies were between 1990 and 2018 and included 1084 cases of HCR and 2349 cases of MICR. Metaanalysis of these studies showed that HCR was associated with a reduced need for ICU LOS (WMD –11.46 hours, 95% CI, –18.76 ~ –4.25, P = .02), to hospital time (WMD –1.34 hours, 95% CI, –2.42 to 0.26, P < .01), and blood transfusion (OR 0.43, 95% CI, 0.31-0.59, P < .00001) than MICR. Comparisons of individual components showed no significant difference in terms of in-hospital mortality, MACCE, shock, myocardial infarction (MI), long-term survival, total variable cost, and surgical complications (including renal failure, chest drainage, bleeding).
Conclusions: HCR was noninferior to MICR in terms of in-hospital mortality, MACCE, shock, MI, long-term survival, total variable cost, and surgical complications (including renal failure, chest drainage, bleeding), whereas HCR was associated with a reduced need for ICU LOS, hospital time, and blood transfusion than MICR and less infection than MICR. Further randomized studies are warranted to corroborate these observational data.
References
Aziz O, Rao C, Panesar SS, et al. 2007. Meta-analysis of minimally invasive internal thoracic artery bypass versus percutaneous revascularisation for isolated lesions of the left anterior descending artery. BMJ 334(7594):617.
Barsoum EA, Azab B, Shah N, et al. 2015. Long-term mortality in minimally invasive compared with sternotomy coronary artery bypass surgery in the geriatric population (75 years and older patients). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 47(5):862-7.
Bonatti JO, Zimrin D, Lehr EJ, et al. 2012. Hybrid coronary revascularization using robotic totally endoscopic surgery: perioperative outcomes and 5-year results. Ann Thorac Surg 94(6):1920-6; discussion 1926.
Farid S, Ali JM, Stohlner V, et al. 2018. Long-term outcome of patients undergoing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery: a single-center experience. Innovations (Phila) 13(1):23-8.
Halkos ME, Ford L, Peterson D, et al. 2014. The impact of hybrid coronary revascularization on hospital costs and reimbursements. Ann Thorac Surg 97(5):1610-5; discussion 1615-6.
Harskamp RE, Bagai A, Halkos ME, et al. 2014. Clinical outcomes after hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery: a meta-analysis of 1,190 patients. Am Heart J 167(4):585-92.
Hart JC, Spooner T, Edgerton J, Milsteen SA. 1999. Off-pump multivessel coronary artery bypass utilizing the Octopus tissue stabilization system: initial experience in 374 patients from three separate centers. Heart Surg Forum 2(1):15-28.
Khaliel F, Giambruno V, Chu MW, Sridhar K, Teefy P, Kiaii BB. 2017. Consequences of hybrid procedure addition to robotic-assisted direct coronary artery bypass. Innovations (Phila) 12(3):192-6.
Kolessov VI. 1967. Mammary artery-coronary artery anastomosis as method of treatment for angina pectoris. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 54(4):535-44.
Messerli AW, Misumida N. 2018. Hybrid coronary revascularization 5 years on : is clinical equipoise good enough? JACC Cardiovasc Interv 11(9):853-5.
Misumida N, Moliterno DJ. 2018. Hybrid coronary revascularization: time for a new comparator? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 91(2):213-4.
Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. 2013. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet 381(9867):629-38.
Nenna A, Spadaccio C, Lusini M, Barbato R, Chello M, Nappi F. 2016. Hybrid coronary revascularization: an attractive alternative between actual results and future trends. Surg Technol Int 28:204-10.
Phan K, Wong S, Wang N, Phan S, Yan TD. 2015. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 179:484-8.
Puskas JD, Halkos ME, DeRose JJ, et al. 2016. Hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease: a multicenter observational study. J Am Coll Cardiol 68(4):356-65.
Repossini A, Tespili M, Saino A, et al. 2013. Hybrid revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 44(2):288-93; discussion 293-4.
Rosenblum JM, Harskamp RE, Hoedemaker N, et al. 2016. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery with bilateral or single internal mammary artery grafts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 151(4):1081-9.
Ruel M, Shariff MA, Lapierre H, et al. 2014. Results of the minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting angiographic patency study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 147(1):203-8; discussion 208-9.
Ruel M, Une D, Bonatti J, McGinn JT. 2013. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting: is it time for the robot? Curr Opin Cardiol 28(6):639-45.
Saran N, Locker C, Said SM, et al. 2018. Current trends in bilateral internal thoracic artery use for coronary revascularization: extending benefit to high-risk patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 155(6):2331-43.
Sim EK, Goh JJ, Cheng A, Tan HC, Lim YT. 1999. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass. Singapore Med J 40(2):75-7.
Soylu E, Harling L, Ashrafian H, et al. 2016. A systematic review of the safety and efficacy of distal coronary artery anastomotic devices in MIDCAB and TECAB surgery. Perfusion 31(7):537-43.
Stastny L, Kofler M, Dumfarth J, et al. 2018. Long-term clinical and computed tomography angiographic follow-up after totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. Innovations (Phila) 13(1):5-10.
Thiele H, Neumann-Schniedewind P, Jacobs S, et al. 2009. Randomized comparison of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery versus sirolimus-eluting stenting in isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 53(25):2324-2331.
Wu S, Ling Y, Fu Y, et al. 2017. Mid-term follow-up outcomes of 2-staged hybrid coronary revascularization compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 12(2):178-85.
Yang M, Wu Y, Wang G, Xiao C, Zhang H, Gao C. 2015. Robotic total arterial off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: seven-year single-center experience and long-term follow-up of graft patency. Ann Thorac Surg 100(4):1367-73.
Zhang LF, Ling YP, Yang H, Gong YC, Song ZM, Wan F. 2017. [Comparison of outcomes of two minimally invasive approaches for multi-vessel coronary revascularization]. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban, 49(6):1066-70. Chinese.
