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.

Clinical and procedural characteristics of persons living with HIV presenting with acute coronary syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Persons living with HIV (PLWH) are at greater risk for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Practice patterns of ACS management by HIV serostatus are unknown. We examined the presentation and management of ACS in PLWH. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. METHODS: We included 86 PLWH and 263 sex-matched and race-matched HIV-negative controls hospitalized with ACS between 2004 and 2013. We performed multivariable conditional logistic regression to determine the associations between HIV serostatus and ACS type and management. RESULTS: Both groups were predominantly of black race and male sex. PLWH were significantly younger (53 vs. 60 years) and more likely to smoke (48 vs. 31%). Among PLWH, 30% had CD4 cell count less than 200 cells/µl and 58% had undetectable HIV RNA. PLWH had more single-vessel disease and a higher median Gensini score among those with single-vessel disease (32 vs. 4.25) than controls. HIV serostatus was positively associated with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) (95% confidence interval (CI)):5.05 (1.82-14.02)], and any revascularization procedure after ACS [aOR (95% CI): 2.90 (1.01-8.39)] and negatively associated with non-STEMI [aOR (95% CI): 0.33 (0.14-0.79)] presentation. PLWH who underwent stent placement had a higher likelihood of bare metal stent placement compared with controls [70 vs. 15%, aOR (95% CI): 5.94 (1.33-26.55)]. Among PLWH, ACS characteristics were not significantly associated with CD4 cell count, HIV RNA, or antiretroviral therapy. CONCLUSION: PLWH hospitalized with ACS were more likely to have severe single-vessel disease, present with STEMI rather than non-STEMI, and undergo revascularization, and less likely to have a drug-eluting stent placed than matched HIV-negative controls, suggesting that coronary plaque morphology and/or distribution is different with HIV infection and warrants further investigation.

Safety of catheter-directed thrombolysis for massive and submassive pulmonary embolism: Results of a multicenter registry and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in the treatment of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). BACKGROUND: The use of CDT for the treatment of acute submassive and massive PE is increasing in frequency. However, its safety and efficacy have not been well elucidated. METHODS: This study is made of two parts: one is a two-center registry of acute PE patients treated with CDT. The safety outcome evaluated was any major complication including fatal, intracranial (ICH), intraocular, or retroperitoneal hemorrhage or any overt bleeding requiring transfusion or surgical repair. The efficacy outcome was acute change in invasive pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP). The second part is a meta-analysis of all contemporary studies that used CDT for PE. Reported outcomes are the same as in the registry, with the addition of right ventricular to left ventricular (RV/LV) ratio change. RESULTS: In the registry, 137 patients were included (age 59 ± 15, 50% male, 88% submassive PE). ICH occurred in two patients and major complications in 13 (9.4%). PASP decreased post procedure by 19 ± 15 mm Hg (95% CI 16-23). In the meta-analysis, 16 studies were included with 860 patients. Rate of ICH was 0.35% and the major complication rate was 4.65%, most requiring transfusion only. In-hospital mortality was 12.9% in the massive and 0.74% in the submassive group. All studies showed improvement in PASP and/or RV/LV ratio post CDT. CONCLUSIONS: CDT is associated with a low major complication rate. Randomized studies are needed to evaluate its efficacy relative to anticoagulation alone. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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.

Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients≥65 years with multivessel coronary artery disease.

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive left internal mammary artery-to-left anterior descending coronary artery grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention of non-left anterior descending coronary arteries. The safety and efficacy of HCR in patients≥65 years of age is unknown. In this study, patients aged≥65 years were included who underwent HCR at an academic center from October 2003 to September 2013. These patients were matched 1:4 to similar patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using a propensity-score matching algorithm. Conditional logistic regression and Cox regression stratified on matched pairs were performed to evaluate the association between HCR and CABG, and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (a composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke), periprocedural complications, and 3-year all-cause mortality. Of 715 patients (143 of whom underwent HCR and 572 CABG) in the propensity score-matched cohort, rates of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were comparable after HCR and CABG (5.6% vs 3.8%, odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 3.27, p=0.36). Compared with CABG, HCR resulted in fewer procedural complications (9.1% vs 18.2%, p=0.018), fewer blood transfusions (28.0% vs 53.3%, p<0.0001), less chest tube drainage (838±484 vs 1,100±579 cm3, p<0.001), and shorter lengths of stay (<5 days: 45.5% vs 27.4%, p=0.001). Over a 3-year follow-up period, mortality rates were similar after HCR and CABG (13.2% vs 16.6%, hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 1.43, p=0.47). Subgroup analyses in high-risk patients (Charlson index≥6, age≥75 years) rendered similar results. In conclusion, although the present data are limited, we found that in older patients, the use of HCR is safe, has fewer procedural complications, entails less blood product use, and results in faster recovery with similar longitudinal outcomes relative to conventional CABG.

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.

A provisional strategy for treating true bifurcation lesions employing a scoring balloon for the side branch: final results of the AGILITY trial.

BACKGROUND: The provisional approach for bifurcation stenting with side-branch balloon angioplasty is associated with dissections and suboptimal results requiring kissing balloon techniques or bailout stenting. We hypothesized that using a scoring balloon for the side branch and a drug-eluting stent for the main vessel might improve outcomes of true bifurcation lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 93 patients with complex bifurcations were enrolled in a multicenter, single-arm, prospective clinical trial. A drug-eluting stent was deployed in the main vessel following dilatation of the side-branch stenosis with a scoring balloon. The overall angiographic success rate was 93.5%, and procedural success rate was 91.4%. The final diameter stenosis was 13.9% ± 7.2% for the main vessel and 33.3% ± 22.9% for the side branch. Crossover to stent deployment in the side branch was required in 10.8%. The postscoring balloon dissection rate was 8.2% and 6% (all ≤ class C) for the main vessel and side branch respectively, which was reduced to 1.1 and 2.1% poststenting. At 9-month follow-up, the composite MACE rate [cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization (TLR)] was 5.4%, including a TLR rate of 3.3% (1.1% from hospital discharge to 9 months). CONCLUSION: The 9-month results of the AGILITY trial support a simple provisional strategy for treating complex true bifurcation lesions with deployment of a drug-eluting stent in the main vessel after dilatation of the side-branch vessel with a scoring balloon. This strategy was associated with excellent and safe procedural results, a low rate of crossover to side-branch stenting, and favorable outcomes.

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.