Logo image
Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Utilization and Comparative Outcomes
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Utilization and Comparative Outcomes

Edward L. Hannan, Yifeng Wu, Kimberly Cozzens, Thoralf M. Sundt, Leonard Girardi, Joanna Chikwe, Andrew Wechsler, Craig R. Smith, Jeffrey P. Gold, Stephen J. Lahey, …
Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions, v 13(10), pp e009386-e009386
01 Oct 2020
PMID: 33040581
url
https://doi.org/10.1161/circinterventions.120.009386View
Published, Version of Record (VoR)Maybe Open Access (Publisher Bronze) Open
url
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.009386View
Published, Version of Record (VoR) Open

Abstract

Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems Cardiovascular System & Cardiology Life Sciences & Biomedicine Science & Technology
Background: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) treats multivessel coronary artery disease by combining a minimally invasive surgical approach to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention for non-left anterior descending diseased coronary arteries. The objective of this study is to compare HCR and conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery medium-term outcomes. Methods: Data from multivessel disease patients in New York's cardiac surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention registries in 2010 to 2016 were used to compare mortality and repeat revascularization rates for HCR and conventional CABG after using propensity matching to reduce selection bias. Results: There was a total of 303 HCR (0.80%) patients and 37 556 conventional CABG patients after exclusions. After propensity matching, the respective median follow-up times were 3.72 years and 3.76 years. There was no difference between HCR and conventional CABG in survival at 6 years (80.9% versus 85.8%%, adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [0.90-2.31]), but HCR had higher mortality excluding deaths during the first year (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.88 [1.10-3.23]). Conventional CABG patients were more likely to be free from repeat revascularization at 6 years than HCR patients (88.2% versus 76.6%; hazard ratio, 2.22 [1.44-3.42]). Conclusions: HCR is rarely performed for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. HCR and conventional CABG had no different 6-year mortality rates, but HCR had higher mortality after 1 year and higher rates of subsequent revascularization that were caused by both the need for repeat revascularization in the left anterior descending artery where minimally invasive CABG was performed, and in the coronary arteries where percutaneous coronary intervention was performed.

Metrics

14 Record Views
28 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
Web of Science research areas
Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
Logo image