Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in Multivessel Disease: The Ideal Strategy for Challenging Scenarios
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59958/hsf.7369Keywords:
hybrid coronary revascularization, multivessel coronary artery disease, chronic coronary syndrome, acute coronary syndrome, percutaneous coronary intervention, robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypassAbstract
The treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) has considerably evolved over the last three decades thanks to innovations in percutaneous and surgical revascularization techniques. The demographic shift towards an aging population with complex coronary anatomy and multiple comorbidities necessitates a personalized approach. A primary challenge for Heart Teams is to integrate new strategies into their decision-making process. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the long-term benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat complex coronary artery disease. Selection of the ideal candidate for HCR requires careful evaluation of anatomic challenges and risk profiles. Although recent evidence demonstrates the safety and efficacy of HCR and makes it a viable alternative to conventional methods, further large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to establish its role in routine practice. In this manuscript, we have provided an overview of the major advances in both percutaneous and surgical techniques. In addition, we have addressed the innovative implications of robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB) and described the surgical procedure and postoperative care in detail. Finally, we have outlined the key principles that guide our clinical practice in selecting the appropriate approach for hybrid coronary revascularization.
References
Head SJ, Börgermann J, Osnabrugge RLJ, Kieser TM, Falk V, Taggart DP, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting: Part 2–optimizing outcomes and future prospects. European Heart Journal. 2013; 34: 2873–2886.
Kirtane AJ, Doshi D, Leon MB, Lasala JM, Ohman EM, O'Neill WW, et al. Treatment of Higher-Risk Patients with an Indication for Revascularization: Evolution Within the Field of Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Circulation. 2016; 134: 422–431.
Khan MA, Hashim MJ, Mustafa H, Baniyas MY, Al Suwaidi SKBM, AlKatheeri R, et al. Global Epidemiology of Ischemic Heart Disease: Results from the Global Burden of Disease Study. Cureus. 2020; 12: e9349.
Van den Eynde J, Bennett J, McCutcheon K, Adriaenssens T, Desmet W, Dubois C, et al. Heart team 2.0: A decision tree for minimally invasive and hybrid myocardial revascularization. Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2021; 31: 382–391.
Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, Alfonso F, Banning AP, Benedetto U, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. European Heart Journal. 2019; 40: 87–165.
Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, Bates ER, Beckie TM, Bischoff JM, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022; 145: e18–e114.
Bennett J, Dubois C. A novel platinum chromium everolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Biologics: Targets & Therapy. 2013; 7: 149–159.
Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, Amoroso N, Attubato MJ, Feit F, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117 762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation. 2012; 125: 2873–2891.
Tommasino A, Burzotta F, Sciahbasi A, Trani C, De Vita M, Romagnoli E, et al. Procedural and clinical evaluation of the novel zotarolimus-eluting resolute stent in patients with unselected bifurcated coronary stenosis treated by provisional approach: a multicenter registry. The Journal of Invasive Cardiology. 2011; 23: 50–54.
Navarese EP, Tandjung K, Claessen B, Andreotti F, Kowalewski M, Kandzari DE, et al. Safety and efficacy outcomes of first and second generation durable polymer drug eluting stents and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents in clinical practice: comprehensive network meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.). 2013; 347: f6530.
Moreno PR, Stone GW, Gonzalez-Lengua CA, Puskas JD. The Hybrid Coronary Approach for Optimal Revascularization: JACC Review Topic of the Week. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2020; 76: 321–333.
Wang C, Liu S, Kamronbek R, Ni S, Cheng Y, Yan H, et al. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Chronic Total Occlusion of Coronary Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2023; 2023: 9928347.
Angsubhakorn N, Kang N, Fearon C, Techorueangwiwat C, Swamy P, Brilakis ES, et al. Contemporary Management of Severely Calcified Coronary Lesions. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2022; 12: 1638.
Otsuka Y, Koyama T, Imoto Y, Katsuki Y, Kawahara M, Nakamura K, et al. Prolonged Inflation Technique Using a Scoring Balloon for Severe Calcified Lesion. International Heart Journal. 2017; 58: 982–987.
Okura H, Hayase M, Shimodozono S, Kobayashi T, Sano K, Matsushita T, et al. Mechanisms of acute lumen gain following cutting balloon angioplasty in calcified and noncalcified lesions: an intravascular ultrasound study. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions: Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 2002; 57: 429–436.
Rheude T, Rai H, Richardt G, Allali A, Abdel-Wahab M, Sulimov DS, et al. Super high-pressure balloon versus scoring balloon to prepare severely calcified coronary lesions: the ISAR-CALC randomised trial. EuroIntervention: Journal of EuroPCR in Collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2021; 17: 481–488.
Barbato E, Gallinoro E, Abdel-Wahab M, Andreini D, Carrié D, Di Mario C, et al. Management strategies for heavily calcified coronary stenoses: an EAPCI clinical consensus statement in collaboration with the EURO4C-PCR group. European Heart Journal. 2023; 44: 4340–4356.
Kereiakes DJ, Ali ZA, Riley RF, Smith TD, Shlofmitz RA. Intravascular Lithotripsy for Treatment of Calcified Coronary Artery Disease. Interventional Cardiology Clinics. 2022; 11: 393–404.
Azzalini L, Ancona MB, Bellini B, Chieffo A, Carlino M, Montorfano M. Intravascular Lithotripsy and Microaxial Percutaneous Left Ventricular Assist Device for Complex and High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. The Canadian Journal of Cardiology. 2019; 35: 940.e5–940.e7.
Lee JM, Hwang D, Choi KH, Rhee TM, Park J, Kim HY, et al. Prognostic Implications of Relative Increase and Final Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients with Stent Implantation. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2018; 11: 2099–2109.
Fournier S, Ciccarelli G, Toth GG, Milkas A, Xaplanteris P, Tonino PAL, et al. Association of Improvement in Fractional Flow Reserve with Outcomes, Including Symptomatic Relief, After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JAMA Cardiology. 2019; 4: 370–374.
Lee JM, Lee SH, Shin D, Choi KH, van de Hoef TP, Kim HK, et al. Physiology-Based Revascularization: A New Approach to Plan and Optimize Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JACC. Asia. 2021; 1: 14–36.
De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B, Barbato E, Tonino PAL, Piroth Z, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2012; 367: 991–1001.
Cerrato E, Mejía-Rentería H, Franzè A, Quadri G, Belliggiano D, Biscaglia S, et al. Quantitative flow ratio as a new tool for angiography-based physiological evaluation of coronary artery disease: a review. Future Cardiology. 2021; 17: 1435–1452.
Gaudino M, Bakaeen F, Davierwala P, Di Franco A, Fremes SE, Patel N, et al. New Strategies for Surgical Myocardial Revascularization. Circulation. 2018; 138: 2160–2168.
Kolessov VI. Mammary artery-coronary artery anastomosis as method of treatment for angina pectoris. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 1967; 54: 535–544.
Bakaeen FG, Blackstone EH, Pettersson GB, Gillinov AM, Svensson LG. The father of coronary artery bypass grafting: René Favaloro and the 50th anniversary of coronary artery bypass grafting. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2018; 155: 2324–2328.
Head SJ, Kieser TM, Falk V, Huysmans HA, Kappetein AP. Coronary artery bypass grafting: Part 1–the evolution over the first 50 years. European Heart Journal. 2013; 34: 2862–2872.
Farina P, Gaudino M, Angelini GD. Off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: The long and winding road. International Journal of Cardiology. 2019; 279: 51–55.
Shaefi S, Mittel A, Loberman D, Ramakrishna H. Off-Pump Versus On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting-A Systematic Review and Analysis of Clinical Outcomes. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. 2019; 33: 232–244.
Lamy A, Devereaux PJ, Prabhakaran D, Taggart DP, Hu S, Straka Z, et al. Five-Year Outcomes after Off-Pump or On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2016; 375: 2359–2368.
Shroyer AL, Hattler B, Wagner TH, Collins JF, Baltz JH, Quin JA, et al. Five-Year Outcomes after On-Pump and Off-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2017; 377: 623–632.
Hammal F, Nagase F, Menon D, Ali I, Nagendran J, Stafinski T. Robot-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Canadian Journal of Surgery. Journal Canadien De Chirurgie. 2020; 63: E491–E508.
Gofus J, Cerny S, Shahin Y, Sorm Z, Vobornik M, Smolak P, et al. Robot-assisted vs. conventional MIDCAB: A propensity-matched analysis. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2022; 9: 943076.
Derose JJ, Jr, Balaram SK, Ro C, Swistel DG, Singh V, Wilentz JR, et al. Mid-term results and patient perceptions of robotically-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting. Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. 2005; 4: 406–411.
Halkos ME, Liberman HA, Devireddy C, Walker P, Finn AV, Jaber W, et al. Early clinical and angiographic outcomes after robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2014; 147: 179–185.
Torregrossa G, Kanei Y, Puskas J. Hybrid robotic coronary artery bypass grafting: how do we do it. Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2016; 5: 582–585.
Gong W, Cai J, Wang Z, Chen A, Ye X, Li H, et al. Robot-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting improves short-term outcomes compared with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting. Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2016; 8: 459–468.
Sabashnikov A, Patil NP, Weymann A, Mohite PN, Zych B, García Sáez D, et al. Outcomes after different non-sternotomy approaches to left single-vessel revascularization: a comparative study with up to 10-year follow-up. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery. 2014; 46: e48–55.
Balkhy HH, Nisivaco S, Kitahara H, AbuTaleb A, Nathan S, Hamzat I. Robotic advanced hybrid coronary revascularization: Outcomes with two internal thoracic artery grafts and stents. JTCVS Techniques. 2022; 16: 76–88.
Repossini A, Di Bacco L, Nicoli F, Passaretti B, Stara A, Jonida B, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass: Twenty-year experience. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2019; 158: 127–138.e1.
Dokollari A, Sicouri S, Erten O, Gray WA, Shapiro TA, McGeehin F, et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of robotic-assisted surgical coronary artery revascularisation. EuroIntervention: Journal of EuroPCR in Collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2024; 20: 45–55.
Ul Islam M, Ahmad I, Khan B, Jan A, Ali N, Hassan Khan W, et al. Early Chest Re-Exploration for Excessive Bleeding in Post Cardiac Surgery Patients: Does It Matter? Cureus. 2021; 13: e15091.
Spanjersberg A, Hoek L, Ottervanger JP, Nguyen TY, Kaplan E, Laurens R, et al. Early home discharge after robot-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting. Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery. 2022; 35: ivac134.
Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Ståhle E, Colombo A, et al. 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 (London, England). 2013; 381: 629–638.
Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Colombo A, Holmes DR, Mack MJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2009; 360: 961–972.
Thuijs DJFM, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW, Mohr FW, Morice MC, Mack MJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial. Lancet (London, England). 2019; 394: 1325–1334.
Sabatine MS, Bergmark BA, Murphy SA, O'Gara PT, Smith PK, Serruys PW, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Lancet (London, England). 2021; 398: 2247–2257.
Holm NR, Mäkikallio T, Lindsay MM, Spence MS, Erglis A, Menown IBA, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial. Lancet (London, England). 2020; 395: 191–199.
Azzalini L, Stone GW. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Surgery for Unprotected Left Main Disease: EXCEL Trial at 5 Years. Interventional Cardiology Clinics. 2020; 9: 419–432.
Garg A, Rao SV, Agrawal S, Theodoropoulos K, Mennuni M, Sharma A, et al. Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Left Main Coronary Artery Disease. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2017; 119: 1942–1948.
Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, Ahn JM, Boersma E, Christiansen EH, et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet (London, England). 2018; 391: 939–948.
Farooq V, van Klaveren D, Steyerberg EW, Meliga E, Vergouwe Y, Chieffo A, et al. Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II. Lancet (London, England). 2013; 381: 639–650.
Toeg H, Al-Atassi T, Labinaz M, Le May M, Ruel M. Hybrid approach for coronary artery revascularization: where do we stand? Current Opinion in Cardiology. 2014; 29: 534–541.
Patel NC, Hemli JM, Kim MC, Seetharam K, Pirelli L, Brinster DR, et al. Short- and intermediate-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization for double-vessel disease. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2018; 156: 1799–1807.e3.
Rodriguez M, Ruel M. Minimally Invasive Multivessel Coronary Surgery and Hybrid Coronary Revascularization: Can We Routinely Achieve Less Invasive Coronary Surgery? Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal. 2016; 12: 14–19.
Bachinsky WB, Abdelsalam M, Boga G, Kiljanek L, Mumtaz M, McCarty C. Comparative study of same sitting hybrid coronary artery revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass in multivessel coronary artery disease. Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2012; 25: 460–468.
Ganyukov V, Kochergin N, Shilov A, Tarasov R, Skupien J, Szot W, et al. 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). Journal of Interventional Cardiology. 2020; 2020: 5458064.
Tajstra M, Hrapkowicz T, Hawranek M, Filipiak K, Gierlotka M, Zembala M, et al. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in Selected Patients with Multivessel Disease: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes of the Prospective Randomized Pilot Study. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2018; 11: 847–852.
Esteves V, Oliveira MAP, Feitosa FS, Mariani J, Jr, Campos CM, Hajjar LA, et al. 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. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions: Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 2021; 97: 259–264.
Nolan S, Filion KB, Atallah R, Moss E, Reynier P, Eisenberg MJ. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization vs Complete Coronary ArteryBypass Grafting for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Invasive Cardiology. 2018; 30: E131–E149
Yu L, Zhu K, Du N, Si Y, Liang J, Shen R, et al. Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Journal of cardiothoracic surgery. 2022; 17: 147.
Bonatti J, Lehr E, Vesely MR, Friedrich G, Bonaros N, Zimrin D. Hybrid coronary revascularization: which patients? When? How? Current Opinion in Cardiology. 2010; 25: 568–574.
Dimeling G, Bakaeen L, Khatri J, Bakaeen FG. CABG: When, why, and how? Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. 2021; 88: 295–303.
Rossi M, Calabrese V, Tripepi G, Mallia G, Benedetto F, Fratto P. Staged Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in Acute Coronary Syndrome. Annals of Thoracic Surgery Short Reports. 2023;1: 293–297.
Whellan DJ, McCarey MM, Taylor BS, Rosengart TK, Wallace AS, Shroyer ALW, et al. Trends in Robotic-Assisted Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts: A Study of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database, 2006 to 2012. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2016; 102: 140–146.
