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
Keywords:Minimally invasive coronary revascularization；hybrid coronary revascularization；meta-analysis
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.
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.
How to Cite
Author Disclosure & Copyright Transfer Agreement
In order to publish the original work of another person(s), The Heart Surgery Forum® must receive an acknowledgment of the Author Agreement and Copyright Transfer Statement transferring to Forum Multimedia Publishing, L.L.C., a subsidiary of Carden Jennings Publishing Co., Ltd. the exclusive rights to print and distribute the author(s) work in all media forms. Failure to check Copyright Transfer agreement box below will delay publication of the manuscript.
A current form follows:
The author(s) hereby transfer(s), assign(s), or otherwise convey(s) all copyright ownership of the manuscript submitted to Forum Multimedia Publishing, LLC (Publisher). The copyright transfer covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article and the material contained therein throughout the world in all languages and in all media of expression now known or later developed, including but not limited to reprints, photographic reproduction, microfilm, electronic data processing (including programming, storage, and transmission to other electronic data record(s), or any other reproductions of similar nature), and translations.
However, Publisher grants back to the author(s) the following:
- The right to make and distribute copies of all or part of this work for use of the author(s) in teaching;
- The right to use, after publication in The Heart Surgery Forum, all or part of the material from this work in a book by the author(s), or in a collection of work by the author(s);
- The royalty-free right to make copies of this work for internal distribution within the institution/company that employs the author(s) subject to the provisions below for a work-made-for-hire;
- The right to use figures and tables from this work, and up to 250 words of text, for any purpose;
- The right to make oral presentations of material from this work.
Publisher reserves the right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. To republish, such third parties must obtain written permission from the Publisher. (This is in accordance with the Copyright Statute, United States Code, Title 17. Exception: If all authors were bona fide officers or employees of the U.S. Government at the time the paper was prepared, the work is a “work of the US Government” (prepared by an officer or employee of the US Government as part of official duties), and therefore is not subject to US copyright; such exception should be indicated on signature lines. If this work was prepared under US Government contract or grant, the US Government may reproduce, royalty-free, all or portions of this work and may authorize others to do so, for official US Government purposes only, if the US Government contract or grant so requires.
I have participated in the conception and design of this work and in the writing of the manuscript and take public responsibility for it. Neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under my authorship has been published, has been submitted for publication elsewhere, or will be submitted for publication elsewhere while under consideration by The Heart Surgery Forum, except as described in an attachment. I have reviewed this manuscript (original version) and approve its submission. If I am listed above as corresponding author, I will provide all authors with information regarding this manuscript and will obtain their approval before submitting any revision. I attest to the validity, accuracy, and legitimacy of the content of the manuscript and understand that Publisher assumes no responsibility for the validity, accuracy, and legitimacy of its content. I warrant that this manuscript is original with me and that I have full power to make this Agreement. I warrant that it contains no matter that is libelous or otherwise unlawful or that invades individual privacy or infringes any copyright or other proprietary right. I agree to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless of and from any claim made against Publisher that relates to or arises out of the publication of the manuscript and agree that this indemnification shall include payment of all costs and expenses relating to the defense of any such claim, including all reasonable attorney’s fees.
I warrant that I have no financial interest in the drugs, devices, or procedures described in the manuscript (except as disclosed in the attached statement).
I state that the institutional Human Subjects Committee and/or the Ethics Committee approved the clinical protocol reported in this manuscript for the use of experimental techniques, drugs, or devices in human subjects and appropriate informed consent documents were utilized.
Furthermore, I state that any and all animals used for experimental purposes received humane care in USDA registered facilities in compliance with the “Principles of Laboratory Animal Care” formulated by the National Society for Medical Research and the “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” prepared by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources and published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH Publication No. 85-23, revised 1985).