Completeness of revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sandoval Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5179393 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Completeness of revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease.
Sandoval Yader Y Brilakis Emmanouil S ES Garcia Santiago S
Journal of thoracic disease 20161101 11
Similar Datasets
Project description:Coronary artery disease (CAD) has typically been treated either medically, with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). As advances in stent technology and minimally invasive surgery have developed, a third option has emerged: hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR). In HCR, minimally invasive CABG and PCI are both employed to treat a single patient, often during the same hospital stay. Patients appropriate for this technique vary widely, from low-risk patients with low SYNTAX lesions outside the left anterior descending artery (LAD), to high-risk patients with multiple comorbidities who are felt by the heart team to benefit most by avoiding a sternotomy. Across both our experience and other series in the literature, mortality with HCR is around 1%. Hospital length of stay is less than one week, and typically less than after conventional CABG, but longer than with isolated PCI. Return to baseline activity is substantially shorter after minimally invasive CABG compared to conventional CABG due to the avoidance of a sternotomy; deep sternal wound infections are entirely avoided. Mid-term need for repeat revascularization may be higher with HCR, though randomized data are lacking. In conclusion, HCR is an evolving method to treat multivessel CAD with favorable early results in high volume centers, though growth in the field is limited by surgical experience and success with minimally invasive techniques.
| S-EPMC6082776 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9390338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveHybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive surgical approach to the left anterior descending (LAD) artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD diseased coronary arteries. It is associated with shorter hospital lengths of stay and recovery times than conventional coronary artery bypass surgery, but there is little information comparing it to isolated PCI for multivessel disease. Our objective is to compare long-term outcomes of HCR and PCI for patients with multivessel disease.MethodsThis cohort study used data from New York's cardiac surgery and PCI registries in 2010-2016 to examine mortality and repeat revascularization rates for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who underwent HCR and PCI. Cox proportional hazards methods were used to reduce selection bias. Patients were followed for a median of four years.ResultsThere was a total of 335 HCR patients (1.2%) and 25,557 PCI patients (98.8%) after exclusions. There was no difference in 6-year risk adjusted survival between HCR and PCI patients (83.17% vs. 81.65%, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.90 (95% CI: 0.67-1.20). However, HCR patients were more likely to be free from repeat revascularization in the LAD artery (91.13% vs. 83.59%, aHR = 0.51 (95% CI: 0.34-0.77)).ConclusionsFor patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease, HCR is rarely performed. There are no differences in mortality rates after four years, but HCR is associated with lower repeat revascularization rates in the LAD artery, presumably due to better longevity in left arterial mammary grafts.
| S-EPMC8047190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) has been demonstrated as a safe and effective revascularization strategy in selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease; however, the inclusion criteria are too strict.ObjectivesThis study was conducted to compare in-hospital and midterm outcomes after generalized HCR and off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCABG) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.MethodsWe proposed a generalized idea of HCR. First, the PCI for non-LAD vessels suitable for coronary stents was performed. Then, MICS-CABG for LIMA to the LAD and saphenous to other non-LAD vessels that were not suitable for stents or stenting failed. Propensity score matching was used, and 222 patients (n = 111 in both the generalized HCR and OPCABG groups) were enrolled in the study. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE) over midterm follow-up, and the secondary endpoints were in-hospital outcomes.ResultsNo significant difference was observed in the cumulative rate of MACCE (9.9% vs. 16.2%; HR, 0.567; 95% CL, 0.268-1.201; P = 0.138) between the generalized HCR and OPCABG groups. The residual SYNTAX score was similar between two groups (6.3 ± 5.5 for generalized HCR vs. 6.8 ± 5.3 for OPCABG; P = 0.486). Compared with OPCABG, generalized HCR was associated with a significantly lower intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) implantation rate (2.7% vs. 9.9%; P = 0.027) and shorter postoperative length of stay (6.3 ± 3.2 vs. 7.7 ± 3.0; P = 0.001).ConclusionsThe generalized HCR procedure appears to be safe and efficacious, with outcomes similar to those of standard off-pump CABG and satisfactory completeness of revascularization.
| S-EPMC11885308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe concept of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-left anterior descending (LAD) graft and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to non-LAD vessels. Multiple comparative studies have evaluated the safety and feasibility of HCR and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for multivessel coronary artery disease (MCAD). However, the sample size of each study was small, and evidences based on single-institutional experience. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term outcomes of HCR with those of CABG for MCAD.MethodPubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, as well as conference proceedings, were searched for eligible studies published up to March 2014. We calculated summary odds ratios (OR) for primary endpoints (death, stroke; myocardial infarction (MI); target vessel revascularization (TVR); major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs)) and secondary endpoints (atrial fibrillation (AF); renal failure; length of stay in the intensive care unit (LoS in ICU); length of stay in hospital (LoS in hospital); red blood cell (RBC) transfusion). Data from 6176 participants were derived from ten cohort studies.ResultsHCR was non-inferior to CABG in terms of MACCEs during hospitalization (odds ratio (OR), 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-1.33)and at one-year follow-up(0.32, 0.05-1.89) , and no significant difference was found between HCR and CABG groups in in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcomes of death, MI, stroke, the prevalence of AF and renal failure, whereas HCR was associated with a lower requirement of RBC transfusion and shorter LoS in ICU and LoS in hospital than CABG (weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.25, 95% CI, -1.62 to -0.88; -17.47, -31.01 to -3.93; -1.77, -3.07 to -0.46; respectively).ConclusionOur meta-analysis indicates that HCR is feasible, safe and effective for the treatment of MCAD, with similar in-hospital and one-year follow-up outcome, significantly lower requirement of RBC transfusion, and faster recovery compared with CABG.
| S-EPMC4433085 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7493597 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive surgical coronary artery bypass grafting of the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-left anterior descending vessels. HCR is increasingly used to treat multivessel coronary artery disease that includes stenoses in the proximal left anterior descending artery and at least 1 other vessel, but its effectiveness has not been rigorously evaluated.ObjectivesThis National Institutes of Health-funded, multicenter, observational study was conducted to explore the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing clinically indicated HCR and multivessel PCI for hybrid-eligible coronary artery disease, to inform the design of a confirmatory comparative effectiveness trial.MethodsOver 18 months, 200 HCR and 98 multivessel PCI patients were enrolled at 11 sites. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (i.e., death, stroke, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization) within 12 months post-intervention. Cox proportional hazards models were used to model time to first MACCE event. Propensity scores were used to balance the groups.ResultsMean age was 64.2 ± 11.5 years, 25.5% of patients were female, 38.6% were diabetic, and 4.7% had previous stroke. Thirty-eight percent had 3-vessel coronary artery disease, and the mean SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score was 19.7 ± 9.6. Adjusted for baseline risk, MACCE rates were similar between groups within 12 months post-intervention (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.063; p = 0.80) and during a median 17.6 months of follow-up (HR: 0.868; p = 0.53).ConclusionsThese observational data from this first multicenter study of HCR suggest that there is no significant difference in MACCE rates over 12 months between patients treated with multivessel PCI or HCR, an emerging modality. A randomized trial with long-term outcomes is needed to definitively compare the effectiveness of these 2 revascularization strategies. (Hybrid Revascularization Observational Study; NCT01121263).
| S-EPMC5142519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are widely used in the treatment of coronary heart disease, but the best revascularization method for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) patients is still controversial. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), together with CABG and PCI, have been proved to be feasible methods, but the long-term effect of HCR is not as clear as CABG.MethodBy October 2020, we retrieved articles from PubMed, Web of science, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases. The main results are based on major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE).ResultA total of 18 articles (3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 observational studies) were included in this meta-analysis. The outcomes of MACCE in the HCR group at perioperative, short-term (30 days to 1 year), medium-term (1 year to 5 years) and long-term (5 years and above) follow-up period were similar to those in the CABG group. The mortality rates of patients in perioperative, short-term and medium-term follow-up were similar to those in the CABG group, but lower than that in the CABG group at long-term follow-up (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.69, p = 0.002). The revascularization rate was higher in the HCR group during the perioperative period (OR = 3.50, 95% CI 2.07-5.94, p < 0.001), short-term (OR = 3.28, 95% CI 1.62-6.64, p < 0.001) and mid-term follow-up (OR = 2.84, 95% CI 1.64-4.92, p < 0.001).ConclusionOur results reveal that HCR is a safe and therapeutically effective alternative in treatments for MVD patients. It has not only less short-term adverse effect, but also better long-term effect, especially in death.
| S-EPMC9175312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Treatment modalities for multivessel disease have rapidly evolved, yet the preferred strategy remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared outcomes after on-pump (ONCAB), off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or hybrid coronary revascularization. A comprehensive search for observational studies and randomized controlled trials published by August 2020 was performed. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted for early (<30 days) and late (>12 months) outcomes. A total of 119 studies were included (n = 700 458 patients). The main analysis was confined to 31 randomized controlled trials (n = 24 932 patients). PCI was associated with lower early mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.79] and stroke (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.60) rates compared with ONCAB, whereas a reduced risk of early myocardial infarction was observed with OPCAB compared with ONCAB (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32-0.83). Late target vessel revascularization and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were both increased with PCI compared with ONCAB, OPCAB and hybrid coronary revascularization (by 127-203% and 59-64%, respectively), and late major adverse cardiac events were increased in PCI compared with ONCAB and OPCAB (by 64% and 59%). However, PCI was associated with a significantly lower risk of late stroke compared with ONCAB (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.89). Sensitivity analyses (i) including observational studies and (ii) limiting to studies with recent cohorts confirmed the findings of the main analysis. Surgical approaches for revascularization remain superior to PCI in patients with multivessel disease. Hybrid coronary revascularization might be viable for some patients, although more evidence from randomized controlled trials is warranted.
| S-EPMC9159431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) routinely exclude patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).ObjectivesThis study evaluated outcomes of PCI versus CABG in patients with CKD.MethodsPatients with CKD who underwent PCI using everolimus-eluting stents were propensity-score matched to patients who underwent isolated CABG for multivessel coronary disease in New York. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization.ResultsOf 11,305 patients with CKD, 5,920 patients were propensity-score matched. In the short term, PCI was associated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 0.87), stroke (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.42), and repeat revascularization (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.98) compared with CABG. In the longer term, PCI was associated with a similar risk of death (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.24), higher risk of MI (HR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.23), a lower risk of stroke (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.76), and a higher risk of repeat revascularization (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 2.05 to 2.85). In the subgroup with complete revascularization with PCI, the increased risk of MI was no longer statistically significant (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.67 to 2.09). In the 243 matched pairs of patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis, PCI was associated with significantly higher risk of death (HR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.93) and repeat revascularization (HR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.50 to 3.96) compared with CABG.ConclusionsIn patients with CKD, CABG is associated with higher short-term risk of death, stroke, and repeat revascularization, whereas PCI with everolimus-eluting stents is associated with a higher long-term risk of repeat revascularization and perhaps MI, with no long-term mortality difference. In the subgroup on dialysis, the results favored CABG over PCI.
| S-EPMC4944845 | biostudies-literature