Is Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Favored  by Cardiologists or Cardiac Surgeons?

Giuseppe D’Ancona; Thomas A. Vassiliades; W. Douglas Boyd; Harry W. Donias; Kenneth D. Stahl; Hratch Karamanoukian

Authors

Giuseppe D’Ancona Center for Less Invasive Cardiac Surgery and Robotic Heart Surgery, Buffalo General Hospital, Buffalo, New York, USA; Quebec Heart Institute, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada
Thomas A. Vassiliades Pensacola Heart Institute, Pensacola, Florida
W. Douglas Boyd Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, USA
Harry W. Donias Center for Less Invasive Cardiac Surgery and Robotic Heart Surgery, Buffalo General Hospital, Buffalo, New York, USA
Kenneth D. Stahl Center for Less Invasive Cardiac Surgery and Robotic Heart Surgery, Buffalo General Hospital, Buffalo, New York, USA
Hratch Karamanoukian Center for Less Invasive Cardiac Surgery and Robotic Heart Surgery, Buffalo General Hospital, Buffalo, New York, USA

Abstract

We investigated the present use of integrated coronary revascularization (ICR) by interviewing a sample of United States invasive cardiologists and cardiac surgeons. Both groups still favor left internal mammary artery (LIMA) grafting to revascularize the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery. There remains a lack of exposure to and acceptance of ICR, especially for surgeons. We report the findings of this national survey of 180 cardiologists and 160 surgeons, as they may serve as an indicator of the cur-rent opinions about ICR and its future applicability as a standard method of coronary artery revascularization. We discuss the limited popularity of minimally invasive hybrid procedures and the importance of further exposing cardiol-ogists and surgeons to ICR.

Is Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Favored by Cardiologists or Cardiac Surgeons?

Authors

Abstract

Published

How to Cite

Issue

Section