Objective To systematically review the efficacy, safety and economic value of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for Chinese patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Methods We searched PubMed, WanFang Data, CNKI, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2016) to collect case-control studies about HCR versus CABG for Chinese patients with coronary multivessel disease from the January 1996 to April 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 9 studies, involving 1 231 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with the CABG groups, HCR group had lower length of ICU stay (MD=–25.84, 95% CI –42.55 to –9.13,P=0.002) and intubation time (MD=–4.06, 95% CI –6.43 to –1.69,P=0.000 8). However, there were no significant differences between both groups in the length of hospital stay (MD=–0.64, 95% CI –2.53 to 1.25,P=0.51), the incidence of atrial fibrillation (OR=1.41, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.30,P=0.17) and renal failure (OR=1.56, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.74,P=0.12). No significant differences were found between both groups in mortality (OR=0.36, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.11,P=0.07), the incidence of myocardial infarction (OR=0.32, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.85,P=0.20) and the incidence of target vessel revascularization (OR=1.16, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.76,P=0.74). But the incidence of the stroke (OR=0.35, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91,P=0.03) and MACCEs (OR=0.37, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.70,P=0.002) of the HCR group were lower than those of the patients of the CABG group. Conclusion The current evidence shows that, compared with the CABG groups, HCR had lower incidence of stroke and MACCEs, however, the safety and efficacy were not significantly different between both groups. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
Objective To compare the in-hospital and midterm outcomes after simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Methods One hundred thirty-two diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease underwent one-stop HCR at Fuwai Hospital from January 2010 to January 2015. These patients were 1∶2 matched with those who underwent OPCAB using propensity score matching. Results Simultaneous HCR had less chest tube drainage (618 (420, 811) ml vs. 969 (711, 1 213)ml, P<0.001), lower transfusion rate (19.7%vs. 34.1%, P=0.026), shorter mechanical ventilation time (11.6 (8.2, 14.8) h vs. 16.0 (12.1, 18.7) h, P<0.001), and shorter stay in intensive care unit (21.5 (18.8, 42.0) hvs. 44.6 (23.7, 70.1) h, P<0.001) than OPCAB. During over median 40 months follow-up, simultaneous HCR offered similar major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate (6.8%vs 9.0%, P=0.826), but lower stroke rate (0% vs 3.0%, P=0.029), compared with OPCAB. Conclusion For selected patients with diabetes, simultaneous HCR provides a safe and effective revascularization alternative. It decreases perioperative invasiveness and incurred similar and favorable midterm outcomes with OPCAB.
Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combining with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has a long-term patency of left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery (LIMA-LAD) grafting, and the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has a minimal invasiveness. It provides an alternative revascularization for patients with coronary heart disease. For patients who meet the HCR indications, most studies suggest that HCR can significantly reduce perioperative trauma, and offer favorable mid- and long-term prognosis, which is comparable with traditional revascularization strategies. Based on the major research results in this field in the past 10 years, we review the current application status and discuss the potential future direction of HCR in this paper.
Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the advantages of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and avoids its relative shortcomings, which has received particular attention in recent years. HCR seems to have become the third revascularization strategy for multi-vessel disease in coronary heart diseases. However, the clinical researches on HCR are still limited. This article will systematically review the comparison of HCR with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and PCI, the results of HCR in specific patients, and the clinical results of different HCR strategies.