Hybrid Coronary Revascularization vs Complete Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) has emerged as a potential alternative to complete coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. However, the efficacy and safety of HCR vs CABG remain unclear. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare these interventions.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, MEDLINE (via Ovid), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Library of Clinical Trials, and the Web of Science for studies comparing HCR to CABG in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its components (myocardial infarction, stroke, mortality, and target-vessel revascularization [TVR]) at ≥1 year. Secondary outcomes included MACCE at ≤30 days, its components, and postoperative safety outcomes (renal failure, blood transfusion, new-onset atrial fibrillation, and infection).

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial and 9 cohort studies were included in our systematic review. Pooled results indicate that HCR is associated with a lower risk for postoperative blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.68) and infection (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.98), and a shorter hospital stay (6.0 days for HCR vs 7.8 days for CABG) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay (25.4 hours for HCR vs 45.7 hours for CABG). Long-term outcome data showed an association between HCR and long-term TVR (OR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.39-6.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that compared to CABG, HCR is associated with a lower risk of postoperative blood transfusion and infection, as well as a shorter ICU stay and hospital stay. HCR was also associated with a higher risk of long-term TVR.