Diagnosis and Management of a Patient With 5-Fluorouracil-Induced ST Elevation and Nonsustained Ventricular Tachycardia as a Late Presentation of Cardiotoxicity and Successful 5-Fluorouracil Rechallenge.

5-fluorouracil (5-FU) is an antimetabolite drug that is used in the treatment of a variety of carcinomas, including breast, gastric, pancreatic, colon, and rectal cancers. It is usually administered to decelerate and prohibit cancer cell proliferation. It acts by inhibiting the enzyme thymidylate synthase by blocking thymidine formation required for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) synthesis. The most common clinical manifestation of 5-FU cardiotoxicity is chest pain related to coronary vasospasm. Patients experiencing cardiotoxicity induced by 5-FU present with signs and symptoms of acute coronary syndromes with elevated cardiac biomarkers (troponin), and their ECGs often reveal ST segment changes. There can be two distinct clinical presentations, early or late presentation of cardiotoxicity. Early toxicity can occur during the infusion, whereas late presentation of toxicity can occur 1-2 days after the infusion. Usually, with early toxicity, troponin elevation may be evident. However, in late presentation of cardiotoxicity symptoms, troponin elevation and/or ECG changes may be undetectable. Our case has a unique presentation of 5-FU toxicity in a patient developing ST elevation and non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) as a late presentation of cardiotoxicity.

Meta-Analysis of Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated With Coronary Stenting.

We aimed to evaluate if a shorter course of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is as effective as a 12-month course with fewer bleeding events. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central were searched for randomized controlled trials of ACS patients comparing dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 1 to 3 months followed by a P2Y12 inhibitor to 12-month DAPT. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment tool. Five randomized clinical trials were included, with a total of 18,046 participants. Antiplatelet strategies were aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months compared with aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor for 1 to 3 months followed by P212 inhibitor alone. Patients randomized to 1 to 3 months of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy had lower rates of major bleeding (1.42% vs 2.53%; OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.42-0.67; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and all-cause mortality (1.00% vs 1.42%; OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.53-0.95; p = 0.02; I2=0%) with similar major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (2.66% vs 3.11%; OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.71 - 1.03; p = 0.10; I2 = 0 %) compared to 12 months of DAPT. In conclusion, shorter course of DAPT for 1 to 3 months followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduces major bleeding and all course mortality without increasing major adverse cardiac events compared with traditional DAPT for 12 months.

A comparison of surgical pulmonary embolectomy and catheter-directed lysis for life-threatening pulmonary emboli.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with life-threatening pulmonary emboli (PE) have traditionally been treated with anticoagulation alone, yet emerging data suggest that more aggressive therapy may improve short-term outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes between catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDL) and surgical pulmonary embolectomy (SPE) in the treatment of life-threatening PE. METHODS: A retrospective single-centre observational study was conducted for patients who underwent SPE or CDL at a single US academic centre. Preprocedural and postprocedural echocardiographic data were collected. Unadjusted regression models were constructed to assess the significance of the between-group postoperative differences. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients suffered a life-threatening PE during the study period [60 SPE (47.6%), 66 CDL 52.4%]. Ten (24.4%) SPE patients and 10 (15.2%) CDL patients had massive PEs marked by preprocedural hypotension. Six (10.0%) SPE patients and 4 (6.0%) CDL patients suffered a preprocedure cardiac arrest (P = 0.41). In-hospital mortality rate was 3.3% (2) for SPE, and 3.0% (2) for CDL (P = 0.99). SPE patients were more likely to require prolonged ventilation (15.0% vs 1.5%, P = 0.01). No significant differences were found in other major complications. At baseline echocardiography, 76.9% of SPE patients and 56.9% of CDL patients had moderate or severe right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. Both treatment groups showed marked and durable improvement in echocardiographic markers of RV function from baseline at midterm follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Both SPE and CDL can be applied to well-selected high-risk patients with low rates of morbidity and mortality. Further research is necessary to delineate which patients would benefit most from either SPE or CDL following a life-threatening PE.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). BACKGROUND: HCR involves a combination of surgical and percutaneous techniques, which in selected patients may present an alternative to conventional CABG. METHODS: Databases were searched through June 30, 2016, and studies comparing HCR with CABG for treatment of MVCAD were selected. We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs with the random-effects model. The primary outcome of interest was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as a composite of all cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS: The analysis included 2,245 patients from 8 studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 7 observational studies). The risk of MACCE with HCR and CABG were 3.6% and 5.4%, respectively (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.24-1.16). Compared to CABG group, patients in HCR group had similar risk of all cause mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.38-1.88), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.31-1.64), stroke (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.23-1.20), and repeat revascularization (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.58-2.83). The need for postoperative blood transfusions (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.59) and hospital stay (weighted mean difference -1.20 days; 95% CI -1.52 to -0.88 days) was significantly lower in the HCR group. CONCLUSION: HCR appears to be safe, and has similar outcomes when compared with conventional CABG. HCR can be a suitable alternative to conventional CABG in select patients with MVCAD. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization for the Treatment of Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive surgical coronary artery bypass grafting of the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-left anterior descending vessels. HCR is increasingly used to treat multivessel coronary artery disease that includes stenoses in the proximal left anterior descending artery and at least 1 other vessel, but its effectiveness has not been rigorously evaluated. OBJECTIVES: This National Institutes of Health-funded, multicenter, observational study was conducted to explore the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing clinically indicated HCR and multivessel PCI for hybrid-eligible coronary artery disease, to inform the design of a confirmatory comparative effectiveness trial. METHODS: Over 18 months, 200 HCR and 98 multivessel PCI patients were enrolled at 11 sites. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (i.e., death, stroke, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization) within 12 months post-intervention. Cox proportional hazards models were used to model time to first MACCE event. Propensity scores were used to balance the groups. RESULTS: Mean age was 64.2 ± 11.5 years, 25.5% of patients were female, 38.6% were diabetic, and 4.7% had previous stroke. Thirty-eight percent had 3-vessel coronary artery disease, and the mean SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score was 19.7 ± 9.6. Adjusted for baseline risk, MACCE rates were similar between groups within 12 months post-intervention (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.063; p = 0.80) and during a median 17.6 months of follow-up (HR: 0.868; p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: These observational data from this first multicenter study of HCR suggest that there is no significant difference in MACCE rates over 12 months between patients treated with multivessel PCI or HCR, an emerging modality. A randomized trial with long-term outcomes is needed to definitively compare the effectiveness of these 2 revascularization strategies. (Hybrid Revascularization Observational Study; NCT01121263).

Physiologic Functional Evaluation of Left Internal Mammary Artery Graft to Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery Steal due to Unligated First Thoracic Branch in a Case of Refractory Angina.

Unligated side branches of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) have been described in the literature as a cause of coronary steal resulting in angina. Despite a number of studies reporting successful side branch embolization to relieve symptoms, this phenomenon remains controversial. Hemodynamic evidence of coronary steal using angiographic and intravascular Doppler techniques has been supported by some and rejected by others. In this case study using an intracoronary Doppler wire with adenosine, we demonstrate that a trial occlusion of the LIMA thoracic side branch with selective balloon inflation can confirm physiologic significant steal and whether coil embolization of the side branch is indicated.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery with bilateral or single internal mammary artery grafts.

OBJECTIVE: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-left anterior descending artery (LAD) bypass with percutaneous intervention of non-LAD vessels. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of HCR to conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with single internal mammary artery (SIMA) or bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting. METHODS: Between October 2003 and September 2013, 306 consecutive patients who underwent HCR were compared with 8254 patients who underwent CABG with SIMA (7381; 89.4%) or BIMA (873; 10.6%) at a US academic center. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (major cerebrovascular and cardiac event [MACCE]). In addition to multiple logistic and linear regression analysis, a propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare HCR with SIMA and with BIMA. RESULTS: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-predicted risk of mortality was 1.6% for HCR, 2.1% for SIMA, and 1.1% for BIMA (P < .001). Factors associated with HCR use were older age, lower body mass index, history of percutaneous coronary intervention, and 2-vessel disease. In propensity-matched groups, 30-day MACCE rates were comparable (3.3% for HCR vs 1.3% for BIMA [odds ratio (OR), 2.50; P = .12] and vs 3.6% for SIMA [OR, 1.00; P = 1.00]). In-hospital complications were lower after HCR versus SIMA or BIMA (OR, 0.59; P = .033 and OR, 0.55; P = .015, respectively), as was the need for blood transfusion (OR, 0.44; P < .001 and OR, 0.57; P < .001). HCR was associated with shorter hospital stay compared with SIMA (OR, 1.28; P = .038) or BIMA (OR, 1.40; P = .006). No survival difference between matched groups was found at midterm follow-up (HCR vs SIMA: hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-1.38; P = .66; HCR vs BIMA: HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.48-2.29; P = .91). CONCLUSIONS: HCR may represent a safe, less invasive alternative to conventional CABG in carefully selected patients, with similar short-term and midterm outcomes as CABG performed with either SIMA or BIMA grafting.

Clinical outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involves minimally invasive left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending coronary artery grafting combined with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-left anterior descending vessels. The safety and efficacy of HCR among diabetic patients are unknown. METHODS: Patients with diabetes were included who underwent HCR at a US academic center between October 2003 and September 2013. These patients were matched 1:5 to similar patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using a propensity score (PS)-matching algorithm. Conditional logistic regression and Cox regression stratified on matched pairs were performed to evaluate the association between HCR and inhospital complications, a composite measure of 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke, and up to 3-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 618 patients (HCR = 103; CABG = 515) in the PS-matched cohort, the 30-day composite of death, MI, or stroke after HCR and CABG was 4.9% and 3.9% (odds ratio: 1.25; 95% CI [0.47-3.33]; P = .66). Compared with CABG, HCR also had similar need for reoperation (7.6% versus 6.3%; P = .60) and renal failure (4.2% versus 4.9%; P = .76) but required less blood products (31.4% versus. 65.8%; P < .0001), lower chest tube drainage (655 mL [412-916] versus 898 mL [664-1240]; P < .0001), and shorter length of stay (<5 days: 48.3% versus 25.3%; P < .0001). Over a 3-year follow-up period, mortality was similar after HCR and CABG (12.3% versus 14.9%, hazard ratio: 0.94, 95% CI [0.47-1.88]; P = .86). CONCLUSION: Among diabetic patients, the use of HCR appears to be safe and has similar longitudinal outcomes but is associated with less blood product usage and faster recovery than conventional CABG surgery.

The impact of clopidogrel therapy on postoperative bleeding after robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients undergoing robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) on clopidogrel had an increased risk of bleeding complications compared with those not on clopidogrel. METHODS: From 2008 to 2011, 322 patients underwent robotic-assisted CABG either as an isolated procedure or as part of a hybrid coronary revascularization procedure (HCR). Patients were classified according to whether they received clopidogrel within 5 days of surgery or intraoperatively (n = 64) compared with those who never received or who had discontinued clopidogrel therapy >5 days before surgery (n = 258). A propensity analysis using 31 preoperative variables was used to control for confounding variables. In a subgroup analysis, patients undergoing one-stage HCR (clopidogrel load 600 mg in odds ratio (OR) prior to stenting) were compared with patients in the clopidogrel group who underwent two-stage HCR. RESULTS: In the Clopidogrel group, the mean interval between surgery and last dose of clopidogrel was 2.1 ± 1.5 days. Compared with the No Clopidogrel group, the Clopidogrel group had greater 24-h chest tube drainage (1003 ± 572 vs 782 ± 530 ml, P = 0.004) and more blood transfusions (35.9%, 23 of 64 patients vs 20.9%, 54 of 258 patients, P = 0.01). On logistic regression analysis, there was greater 24-h chest tube drainage in the Clopidogrel group (+198 ml, P = 0.02) and a significantly higher incidence of blood transfusion (OR = 2.30, P = 0.01). In the subgroup analysis, patients undergoing one-stage HCR (n = 17) had greater 24-h chest tube drainage compared with patients undergoing two-stage HCR (1262 vs 909 ml, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing robotic-assisted CABG on clopidogrel had more postoperative bleeding and a higher incidence of blood transfusion. Therefore, despite a less invasive approach, surgery should be delayed in these patients when possible.

The impact of hybrid coronary revascularization on hospital costs and reimbursements.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive, left internal mammary artery-left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) bypass with percutaneous intervention of non-LAD vessels for patients with multivessel coronary disease. The financial implications of HCR have not been compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) through sternotomy. METHODS: The contribution margin is a fiduciary calculation (best hospital payment estimate--total variable costs) used by hospitals to determine fiscal viability of services. From 2010 to 2011, 26 Medicare patients underwent HCR at a single United States institution and were compared with 28 randomly selected, contemporaneous Medicare patients undergoing multivessel OPCAB. All HCR patients underwent a robotic-assisted, sternal-sparing, off-pump, left internal mammary artery-LAD anastomosis plus percutaneous intervention to non-LAD vessels. A linear regression model was used to compare fiscal and utilization outcomes of HCR to OPCAB adjusted for hospital length of stay and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score. RESULTS: On regression analysis controlling for overall length of stay and Predicted Risk of Mortality score, the contribution margin (+$8,771, p<0.0001) was greater for HCR than for OPCAB. Despite higher total cost for HCR compared with OPCAB (+$7,026, p=0.001), the total variable cost (+$2,281, p=0.07) was not significantly different. Best payment estimates (+11,031, p<0.0001) and Medicare reimbursements (+$8,992, p=0.002) were higher for HCR than for OPCAB, and there was a reduction in blood transfusion (-1.5 units, p<0.0001), ventilator time (-10 hours, p=0.001), and postoperative length of stay (-1.2 days, p=0.002) for the HCR group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with OPCAB, HCR results in a greater contribution margin for hospitals. This may result from higher reimbursement as well as improved resource utilization postoperatively, which may offset more expensive procedural costs associated with HCR.

Early clinical and angiographic outcomes after robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting has emerged as an alternative to traditional coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous intervention for patients with coronary artery disease. However, the safety and efficacy of this minimally invasive procedure have not been established in large series. METHODS: From October 2009 to September 2012, 307 consecutive robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting procedures were performed at a single US institution by 2 surgeons. Isolated, off-pump, left internal thoracic artery to left anterior descending coronary artery grafting was planned via a 3- to 4-cm non-rib-spreading minithoracotomy after robotic left internal thoracic artery harvest in all patients. Hybrid coronary revascularization was planned in 159 patients (51.8%). Of the 199 angiograms (64.8%) performed before discharge, 63 were performed as completion angiograms in a hybrid suite immediately after left internal thoracic artery-left anterior descending artery grafting. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality occurred in 4 patients (1.3%), conversion to sternotomy occurred in 16 patients (5.2%), postoperative myocardial infarction occurred in 5 patients (1.6%), and reexploration for bleeding occurred in 7 patients (2.3%). There was 1 (0.3%) postoperative stroke. For the 199 patients with follow-up angiography before discharge, the left internal thoracic artery was confirmed to be patent (<50% stenosis) in 189 patients (95.0%). Among the 10 patients with significant (≥50% stenosis) defects, 5 had graft occlusion or distal left anterior descending occlusion, 2 had poor flow distal to the anastomosis, and 3 had anastomotic lesions (≥50% stenosis). Among the 63 patients with intraoperative completion angiography, 5 patients underwent surgical graft revision, 3 patients underwent minithoracotomy, and 2 patients underwent conversion to sternotomy. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting is an effective alternative to traditional coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with single or multivessel coronary artery disease, with comparable short-term clinical and angiographic results.

Clinical and angiographic results after hybrid coronary revascularization.

BACKGROUND: With hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), minimally invasive left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) grafting is combined with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-LAD vessels. The purpose of this study was to examine the short-term clinical and angiographic results in one of the largest HCR series to date. METHODS: From 2003 to 2012, 300 consecutive patients (aged 64±12 years, female 31.7%, predicted risk of mortality 1.6%±2.1%) underwent HCR on an intent-to-treat basis at a single institution. After robotic or thoracoscopic LIMA harvest, off-pump LIMA to LAD grafting was performed through a 3- to 4-cm sternal-sparing, non-rib-spreading thoracotomy. PCI was utilized to treat non-LAD lesions either before, after, or concomitant with the surgical procedure. RESULTS: Of the 300 patients undergoing HCR on an intent-to-treat basis, HCR was performed with surgery first in 192 patients (64.0%), PCI first in 56 (18.7%), and as a concomitant procedure in 21 (7.0%). Of the 31 patients (10.1%) who did not undergo HCR, 24 patients (8.0%) did not have PCI and thus were incompletely revascularized. For all patients, 30-day mortality, stroke, and nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 4 (1.3%), 3 (1.0%), and 4 (1.3%), respectively. Angiographic LIMA evaluation was performed in 248 patients and revealed a FitzGibbon A LIMA patency rate of 97.6% (242 of 248 patients). Repeat revascularization was required in 13 of 300 patients (4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid coronary revascularization represents an alternative approach for patients with multivessel coronary disease with excellent short-term outcomes. It provides a minimally invasive alternative to traditional coronary artery bypass graft surgery and may prove more durable than multivessel PCI.

The accuracy of transit time flow measurement in predicting graft patency after coronary artery bypass grafting.

OBJECTIVE: Transit time flow measurement (TTFM) is a method used to assess intraoperative blood flow after vascular anastomoses. Angiography represents the criterion standard for the assessment of graft patency after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The purpose of this study was to compare flow measurements from TTFM to diagnostic angiography. METHODS: From October 9, 2009, to April 30, 2012, a total of 259 patients underwent robotic-assisted CABG procedures at a single institution. Of these, 160 patients had both TTFM and either intraoperative or postoperative angiography of the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending coronary artery graft. Transit time flow measurements were obtained after completion of the anastomosis and after administration of protamine before chest closure. Transit time flow measurement assessment included pulsatility index, diastolic fraction, and flow (milliliters per minute). Angiograms were graded according to the Fitzgibbon criteria. The patients were grouped according to angiographic findings, with perfect grafts defined as FitzGibbon A and problematic grafts defined as either Fitzgibbon B or O. RESULTS: Overall, there were 152 (95%) of 160 angiographically perfect grafts (FitzGibbon A). Of the eight problematic grafts, five were occluded (Fitzgibbon O) and three had significant flow-limiting lesions (FitzGibbon B). Two patients had intraoperative graft revision after completion angiography, one had redo CABG during the same hospitalization, and five were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. A significant difference was seen in mean ± SD flow (34.3 ± 16.8 mL/min vs 23.9 ± 12.5 mL/min, P = 0.033) between patent and nonpatent grafts but not in pulsatility index (1.98 ± 0.76 vs 1.65 ± 0.48, P = 0.16) or diastolic fraction (73.5% ± 8.45% vs 70.9% ± 6.15%, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Although TTFM can be a useful tool for graft assessment after CABG, false negatives can occur. Angiography remains the criterion standard to assess graft patency and quality of the anastomosis after CABG.

Lessons learned from robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass surgery: risk factors for conversion to median sternotomy.

OBJECTIVE: Robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass is a minimally invasive alternative to traditional coronary artery bypass surgery via median sternotomy with an associated learning curve. The purpose of this study was to investigate the reasons for conversion to sternotomy. METHODS: From October 2009 to June 2012, two surgeons at one US academic institution performed 271 consecutive robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass procedures. For all cases, isolated, off-pump left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to left anterior descending coronary artery grafting was planned via a 3- to 4-cm sternal-sparing thoracotomy after robotic internal mammary artery harvest and pericardiotomy. RESULTS: Conversion to sternotomy occurred in 15 of 271 (5.5%) patients. The most common reason was technical difficulty with the anastomosis, which occurred in 6 (40.0%) patients. Others included LIMA dissection, 2 (13.3%); wrong vessel grafted, 2 (13.3%); ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest, 1 (6.7%); equipment malfunction, 1 (6.7%); adhesions, 1 (6.7%); and other. Two underwent emergent conversion. Six underwent multivessel bypass after conversion instead of hybrid coronary revascularization. No mortality occurred among converted patients. Two patients had postoperative myocardial infarction and one had a superficial sternal wound infection. Conversion rate was relatively stable among the four different time quartiles (range, 3.0%-7.4%), although the reasons for conversion were different. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion to sternotomy is an infrequent complication of robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass, most commonly because of technical difficulties during the LIMA harvest and the LIMA to left anterior descending anastomosis. Anatomic and patient variables as well as inherent technical problems with minimally invasive procedures make conversion unavoidable in some patients.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass for the treatment of left main coronary stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting is standard of care for left main (LM) coronary artery stenosis. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is an alternative therapy, combining a minimally invasive, sternal-sparing, off-pump left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending coronary anastomosis with percutaneous coronary stent placement through the LM into the circumflex coronary artery. METHODS: From October 8, 2003, to April 23, 2010, 27 patients with LM coronary disease had HCR at a US academic center. These patients were matched 3:1 to 81 contemporaneous patients treated with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting through a sternotomy by an optimal matching algorithm using seven preoperative variables. In-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and repeat revascularization during the study period were compared between groups. All-cause mortality was compared using the National Social Security Death Index. RESULTS: Patency of the left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending coronary anastomosis was confirmed in all cases before LM stenting, which was successful in all patients. There was no perioperative death, stroke, or myocardial infarction among the HCR patients. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were similar between groups. During a median of 3.2 years of follow-up, patients treated with HCR had a higher incidence of repeat revascularization than those treated with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (2 of 27, 7.4% versus 1 of 81, 1.2%; p = 0.09), but this was not statistically significant. The incidence of blood transfusion was higher with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (50 of 81, 61.7% versus 9 of 27 33.3%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid revascularization is a safe, feasible, and minimally invasive alternative to off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of LM coronary disease. Further investigation into the comparative effectiveness of this alternative strategy is warranted to identify optimal candidates for HCR.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive (3-cm anterolateral thoracotomy), sternal-sparing, off-pump left internal mammary artery-left anterior descending (LIMA-LAD) coronary artery anastomosis with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to non-LAD coronary arteries. We compared outcomes of HCR versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Between October 8, 2003 and April 23, 2010, 147 patients with multivessel coronary disease were treated with HCR at a US academic center. These were matched 4:1 to 588 contemporaneous patients treated with multivessel OPCAB by sternotomy using an optimal matching algorithm with 8 preoperative variables: age, gender, ejection fraction, presence of diabetes, myocardial infarction (MI), number of diseased vessels, left main coronary artery disease, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM) score. In-hospital major adverse events (MACCE) and the need for repeated revascularization during follow-up were compared between groups. All-cause mortality was determined using the Social Security Death Index (SSDI). RESULTS: Matching produced groups with similar coronary anatomy and statistically similar preoperative risk factors. The incidence of MACCE was similar between groups (3/147 HCR versus 12/588 OPCAB). During a median 3.2 years of follow up, the need for repeated revascularization was higher for HCR than for OPCAB (18/147 [12.2%] versus 22/588 [3.7%]; p < 0.001). The incidence of blood transfusion was higher for the OPCAB group. Estimated 5-year survival was similar between groups (OPCAB, 84.3% versus HCR, 86.8%; p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid coronary revascularization is a minimally invasive treatment for multivessel CAD. Although repeated revascularization was greater with HCR, both in-hospital and midterm outcomes were comparable with those of traditional OPCAB. Further investigation into the comparative effectiveness of this alternative strategy is warranted.