Advanced hybrid closed chest revascularization: an innovative strategy for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease†

Abstract

Objectives: Conventional hybrid revascularization (CHR) combines minimally invasive placement of an internal mammary artery graft to the anterior wall and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-anterior wall targets. In this study we assess perioperative and midterm outcomes of advanced hybrid revascularization (AHR) defined as the combination of single or multivessel (MV) totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting (TECAB) with single or multivessel PCI.

Methods: In total, 90 AHR patients [median age 62 years (35-86)] were compared with 90 CHR patients [median age 60 years (35-85)] in terms of perioperative and mid-term outcomes. The outcomes of the three different AHR options (MV-TECAB + PCI, MV-PCI + TECAB, MV-TECAB + MV-PCI) as well as the sequence of the interventions were further compared. Risk factors for major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCEs) related to the hybrid revascularization strategy were calculated.

Results: No perioperative deaths occurred either in the AHR group or in the CHR group, rates of myocardial infarction (3.3% vs 3.3%, P = 0.196) were similar between CHR and AHR. Operative times were longer in the AHR group [337 (137-794) min vs 272 (148-550) min, P = 0.002] and conversion rates slightly higher (P = 0.060); however, intensive care unit length of stay (P = 0.162) and hospital length of stay (P = 0.238) were similar. There was no difference in the follow-up survival (P = 0.091), freedom from angina (P = 0.844), PCI target vessel revascularization (P = 0.563), TECAB target vessel revascularization (P = 0.135) and MACCEs (P = 0.601) between CHR and AHR at follow-up. No differences were detected between the three variations of AHR in perioperative outcome, mid-term survival, freedom from MACCEs and reintervention. Neither the number nor type of TECAB/PCI targets, nor the sequence of interventions were significant predictors for MACCEs at follow-up.

Conclusions: AHR yields comparable results with CHR and can be taken into consideration as a sternum-sparing technique for the treatment of MV-coronary artery disease in selected patients.

Keywords: Coronary artery disease; Hybrid coronary revascularization; Minimally invasive cardiac surgery; Percutaneous coronary intervention; Robotics.