Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease

Background: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive (3-cm anterolateral thoracotomy), sternal-sparing, off-pump left internal mammary arteryleft anterior descending (LIMA-LAD) coronary artery anastomosis with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to non-LAD coronary arteries. We compared outcomes of HCR versus traditional off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: Between October 8, 2003 and April 23, 2010, 147 patients with multivessel coronary disease were treated with HCR at a US academic center. These were matched 4:1 to 588 contemporaneous patients treated with multivessel OPCAB by sternotomy using an optimal matching algorithm with 8 preoperative variables: age, gender, ejection fraction, presence of diabetes, myocardial infarction (MI), number of diseased vessels, left main coronary artery disease, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) predicted risk of mortality (PROM) score. In-hospital major adverse events (MACCE) and the need for repeated revascularization during follow-up were compared between groups. All-cause mortality was determined using the Social Security Death Index (SSDI). Results: Matching produced groups with similar coronary anatomy and statistically similar preoperative risk factors. The incidence of MACCE was similar between groups (3/147 HCR versus 12/588 OPCAB). During a median 3.2 years of follow up, the need for repeated revascularization was higher for HCR than for OPCAB (18/147 [12.2%] versus 22/588 [3.7%]; p < 0.001). The incidence of blood transfusion was higher for the OPCAB group. Estimated 5-year survival was similar between groups (OPCAB, 84.3% versus HCR, 86.8%; p = 0.61). Conclusions: Hybrid coronary revascularization is a minimally invasive treatment for multivessel CAD. Although repeated revascularization was greater with HCR, both in-hospital and midterm outcomes were comparable with those of traditional OPCAB. Further investigation into the comparative effectiveness of this alternative strategy is warranted.