Comparative Effectiveness of Hybrid Coronary Revascularization vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Background: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending bypass with percutaneous coronary intervention of non-left anterior descending vessels. Its safety and effectiveness compared with conventional CABG have been under studied.

Study design: Patients with multivessel disease and/or left main disease who underwent HCR at a US academic center between October 2003 and September 2013 were included. These patients were matched 1:3 to patients treated with CABG using a propensity-score matching algorithm. Conditional logistic regression and Cox regression analyses stratified on matched pairs were performed to evaluate the adjusted association between HCR and short- and long-term outcomes.

Results: The 30-day composite of death, MI, or stroke after HCR and CABG was 3.3% and 3.1% (odds ratio = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.52-2.21; p = 0.85) in the matched cohort of 1,224 patients (HCR, n =306; CABG, n = 918). Hybrid coronary revascularization was associated with lower rates of in-hospital major morbidity (8.5% vs 15.5%; p = 0.005), lower blood transfusion use (21.6% vs 46.6%; p < 0.001), lower chest tube drainage (690 mL; 25th to 75th percentile: 485 to 1,050 mL vs 920 mL, 25th to 75th percentile: 710 to 1,230 mL; p < 0.001), and shorter postoperative length of stay (<5-day stay: 52.6% vs 38.1%; p = 0.001). During a 3-year follow-up period, mortality was similar after HCR and CABG (8.8% vs 10.2%; hazard ratio = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.55-1.52; p = 0.72). Subgroup analyses in patients stratified by 2-vessel, 3-vessel, left main disease, and by Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores rendered similar results.

Conclusions: The use of HCR appeared to be safe, with faster recovery and similar outcomes when compared with conventional CABG. These findings were consistent irrespective of anatomic or predicted procedural risk.