Xia Yu, Katz Abraham N, Forest Stephen J, Pyo Robert T, Greenberg Mark A, DeRose Joseph J
From the *Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, and †Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY USA.
Innovations (Phila). 2017 May/Jun;12(3):174-179. doi: 10.1097/IMI.0000000000000376.
We evaluated short-term outcomes and mid-term survival and reintervention of hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting using a propensity score matched cohort.
We conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease from 2007 to 2015 at a single institution. Patients were propensity matched 1:1 to receiving hybrid coronary revascularization or conventional bypass grafting by multivariate logistic regression on preoperative characteristics. Short-term outcomes were compared. Freedom from reintervention and death were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression.
Propensity score matching selected 91 patients per group from 91 hybrid and 2601 conventionally revascularized patients. Hybrid revascularization occurred with surgery first in 56 (62%), percutaneous intervention first in 32 (35%), and simultaneously in 3 (3%) patients. Median intervals between interventions were 3 and 36 days for surgery first and percutaneous intervention first, respectively. Preoperative characteristics were similar. Patients undergoing hybrid revascularization had shorter postoperative length of stay (median = 4 vs 5 days, P < 0.001), less postoperative transfusion (13.2% vs 34.1%, P = 0.001), and respiratory failure (0% vs 6.6%, P = 0.03). They were more likely to be discharged home (93.4% vs 71.4%, P < 0.001), with no difference in 30-day mortality (P = 0.99), readmission (P = 0.23), or mid-term survival (P = 0.79). Hybrid revascularization was associated with earlier reintervention (P = 0.02). Hazard ratios for reintervention and patient mortality of hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional revascularization were 3.60 (95% confidence interval = 1.16-11.20) and 1.17 (95% confidence interval = 0.37-3.72), respectively.
Despite having favorable short-term outcomes and similar survival, hybrid coronary revascularization may be associated with earlier reintervention compared with conventional techniques.
