Hybrid coronary revascularization is a clinical strategy that uses a combination of surgical revascularization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data on the hybrid approach for coronary artery disease involving the left main (LM) are scarce. We analyzed our cohort of hybrid coronary revascularizations with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) using robotic left internal mammary artery harvesting and PCI for multivessel disease with and without LM involvement.
Methods:
Between January 2013 and December 2020, 105 patients consecutively underwent robotic MIDCAB. Of those, 62 patients (59.1%) had multivessel coronary artery disease and underwent revascularization via the hybrid approach using robotic MIDCAB and PCI. Patients were then stratified into 2 groups for comparison: LM disease (n = 22, 35.5%) and non-LM disease (n = 40, 64.5%).
Results:
The SYNTAX scores were significantly lower in the non-LM group compared with the LM group (19.06 ± 6.41 vs 24.86 ± 7.04, P = 0.002). There were no other significant differences in demographics between the groups. There were no 30-day mortalities in either group. Freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 5 years was 72.2% in the non-LM group and 61.0% in the LM group (P = 0.89). There were no significant differences in 5-year overall survival (94.1% vs 83.3%, P = 0.074) or freedom from coronary reintervention (83.4% vs 75.4%, P = 0.699).
Conclusions:
Hybrid robotic MIDCAB for patients with and without LM disease can be performed with acceptable results in selected patients. However, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions regarding safety and efficacy compared with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting.
AngeliniGDWildePSalernoTA, et al. Integrated left small thoracotomy and angioplasty for multivessel coronary artery revascularisation. Lancet1996; 347: 757–758.
2.
HalkosMEVassiliadesTAMyungRJ, et al. Sternotomy versus nonsternotomy LIMA-LAD grafting for single-vessel disease. Ann Thorac Surg2012; 94: 1469–1477.
3.
KonZNBrownENTranR, et al. Simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization reduces postoperative morbidity compared with results from conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2008; 135: 367–375.
4.
JonesMLQiuS and
SudarshanC.Perioperative outcomes in hybrid versus conventional surgical coronary artery revascularisation. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg2010; 11: 292–296.
5.
GasiorMZembalaMOTajstraM, et al. Hybrid revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2014; 7: 1277–1283.
6.
LawtonJSTamis-HollandJEBangaloreS, 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. J Am Coll Cardiol2022; 79: e21–e129.
7.
FitzgibbonGMKafkaHPLeachAJ, et al. Coronary bypass graft fate and patient outcome: angiographic follow-up of 5,065 grafts related to survival and reoperation in 1,388 patients during 25 years. J Am Coll Cardiol1996; 28: 616–626.
TatoulisJBuxtonBFFullerJA.Patencies of 2127 arterial to coronary conduits over 15 years. Ann Thorac Surg2004; 77: 93–101.
10.
HaywardPA and
BuxtonBF.Contemporary coronary graft patency: 5-year observational data from a randomized trial of conduits. Ann Thorac Surg2007; 84: 795–799.
11.
SabikJFIIIMehaffeyJHBadhwarV, et al. Multiarterial vs single-arterial coronary surgery: 10-year follow-up of 1 million patients. Ann Thorac Surg2024; 117: 780–788.
12.
HeadSJMilojevicMTaggartDP, et al. Current practice of state-of-the-art surgical coronary revascularization. Circulation2017; 136: 1331–1345.
13.
SamanoNGeijerHLidenM, et al. The no-touch saphenous vein for coronary artery bypass grafting maintains a patency, after 16 years, comparable to the left internal thoracic artery: a randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2015; 150: 880–888.
14.
XenogiannisIZenatiMBhattDL, et al. Saphenous vein graft failure: from pathophysiology to prevention and treatment strategies. Circulation2021; 144: 728–745.
15.
GoldmanSZadinaKMoritzT, et al. Long-term patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary artery grafts after coronary artery bypass surgery: results from a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study. J Am Coll Cardiol2004; 44: 2149–2156.
16.
ParangP and
AroraR.Coronary vein graft disease: pathogenesis and prevention. Can J Cardiol2009; 25: e57–e62.
17.
StoneGWRizviANewmanW, et al. Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med2010; 362: 1663–1674.
18.
FarkouhMEDomanskiMSleeperLA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med2012; 367: 2375–2384.
19.
SedlisSPHartiganPMTeoKK, et al. Effect of PCI on long-term survival in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. N Engl J Med2015; 373: 1937–1946.
20.
GroupBDSFryeRLAugustP, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med2009; 360: 2503–2515.
21.
MorenoPRStoneGWGonzalez-LenguaCA, et al. The hybrid coronary approach for optimal revascularization: JACC review topic of the week. J Am Coll Cardiol2020; 76: 321–333.
22.
HageAGiambrunoVJonesP, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: comparative effectiveness analysis with long-term follow-up. J Am Heart Assoc2019; 8: e014204.
23.
BonattiJOZimrinDLehrEJ, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization using robotic totally endoscopic surgery: perioperative outcomes and 5-year results. Ann Thorac Surg2012; 94: 1920–1926.
24.
HarskampREBrennanJMXianY, et al. Practice patterns and clinical outcomes after hybrid coronary revascularization in the United States: an analysis from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Database. Circulation2014; 130: 872–879.
25.
PatelNCHemliJMKimMC, et al. Short- and intermediate-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization for double-vessel disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2018; 156: 1799–1807.
26.
WangCLiPZhangF, et al. Is hybrid coronary revascularization really beneficial in the long term?Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2021; 60: 1158–1166.
27.
HalkosMERabSTVassiliadesTA, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass for the treatment of left main coronary stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg2011; 92: 2155–2160.
28.
StoneGWKappeteinAPSabikJF, et al. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med2019; 381: 1820–1830.
29.
HolmNRMäkikallioTLindsayMM, 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. Lancet2020; 395: 191–199.
30.
LeeJAhnJMKimJH, et al. Prognostic effect of the SYNTAX score on 10-year outcomes after left main coronary artery revascularization in a randomized population: insights from the extended PRECOMBAT Trial. J Am Heart Assoc2021; 10: e020359.
31.
AhnJMRohJHKimYH, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: 5-year outcomes of the PRECOMBAT Study. J Am Coll Cardiol2015; 65: 2198–2206.
32.
GiacoppoDColleranRCasseseS, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol2017; 2: 1079–1088.
33.
SerruysPWMoriceMCKappeteinAP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med2009; 360: 961–972.
34.
SabatineMSBergmarkBAMurphySA, 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. Lancet2021; 398: 2247–2257.
35.
EngelmanDTBen AliWWilliamsJB, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in cardiac surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society recommendations. JAMA Surg2019; 154: 755–766.
36.
GrantMCCrisafiCAlvarezA, et al. Perioperative care in cardiac surgery: a joint consensus statement by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Cardiac Society, ERAS International Society, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Ann Thorac Surg2024; 117: 669–689.
37.
PatelNCHemliJMSeetharamK, et al. Minimally invasive coronary bypass versus percutaneous coronary intervention for isolated complex stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2022; 163: 1839–1846.
38.
Fraund-CremerSHoffmannGArndtJ, et al. Long-term follow-up of patients with complex coronary artery disease treated with minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass. Cardiol J2023; 30: 1003–1009.
39.
GanyukovVIKocherginNAShilovAA, et al. Randomized clinical trial of hybrid vs. surgical vs. percutaneous multivessel coronary revascularization: 5‑year follow-up of HREVS Trial. Kardiologiia2023; 63: 57–63.
40.
GreenKDLynchDRJrChenTP, et al. Combining PCI and CABG: the role of hybrid revascularization. Curr Cardiol Rep2013; 15: 351.
41.
HarskampREZhengZAlexanderJH, et al. Status quo of hybrid coronary revascularization for multi-vessel coronary artery disease. Ann Thorac Surg2013; 96: 2268–2277.
42.
ZhaoDXLeaccheMBalaguerJM, et al. Routine intraoperative completion angiography after coronary artery bypass grafting and 1-stop hybrid revascularization results from a fully integrated hybrid catheterization laboratory/operating room. J Am Coll Cardiol2009; 53: 232–241.
43.
KárolyiMEberhardMGloorT, et al. Routine early postoperative computed tomography angiography after coronary artery bypass surgery: clinical value and management implications. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2022; 61: 459–466.
44.
GiambrunoVJonesPKhalielF, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg2018; 105: 1330–1335.
45.
DanielWTLibermanHAKilgoP, et al. The impact of clopidogrel therapy on postoperative bleeding after robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2014; 46: e8–e13.
46.
EjioforJILeaccheM and
ByrneJG.Robotic CABG and hybrid approaches: the current landscape. Prog Cardiovasc Dis2015; 58: 356–364.
47.
HemliJMDarlaLSPanettaCR, et al. Does dual antiplatelet therapy affect blood loss and transfusion requirements in robotic-assisted coronary artery surgery?Innovations2012; 7: 399–402.
48.
VarenhorstCAlstromUSciricaBM, et al. Factors contributing to the lower mortality with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol2012; 60: 1623–1630.
49.
NgAKNgPYIpA, et al. Association between radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention and long-term mortality. J Am Heart Assoc2021; 10: e021256.
50.
SenguttuvanNBReddyPMKShankarP, et al. Trans-radial approach versus trans-femoral approach in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One2022; 17: e0266709.
51.
Le MayMWellsGSoD, et al. Safety and efficacy of femoral access vs radial access in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the SAFARI-STEMI randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol2020; 5: 126–134.
52.
GaudinoMSannaTBallmanKV, et al. Posterior left pericardiotomy for the prevention of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: an adaptive, single-centre, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet2021; 398: 2075–2083.
53.
JoglarJAChungMKArmbrusterAL, et al. 2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS guideline for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation2024; 149: e1–e156.
54.
HalkosMELibermanHADevireddyC, et al. Early clinical and angiographic outcomes after robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2014; 147: 179–185.
55.
TajstraMHrapkowiczTHawranekM, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization in selected patients with multivessel disease: 5-year clinical outcomes of the prospective randomized pilot study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv2018; 11: 847–852.
