Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hybrid myocardial revascularization

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In patients with advanced coronary artery disease (CAD), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with improved long-term outcomes while percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with lower periprocedural complications. A new approach has emerged in the last decade that attempts to reap the benefits of bypass surgery and stenting while minimizing the shortcomings of each approach, hybrid myocardial revascularization (HMR).Three strategies for timing of the hybrid revascularization exists, each with their own inherent advantages and shortcomings: (1) CABG followed by PCI, (2) PCI followed by CABG, or (3) simultaneous CABG + PCI in a hybrid suite.

Studies

The results of the first randomized control trial comparing HMR (CABG first) and standard CABG, POL-MIDES (Prospective Randomized PilOt Study EvaLuating the Safety and Efficacy of Hybrid Revascularization in MultIvessel Coronary Artery DisEaSe), show HMR was feasible for 93.9% of patients whereas conversion to standard CABG was required for 6.1%. At 1 year, both groups had similar all-cause mortality (CABG 2.9% vs. HMR 2%) and major adverse clinical event (MACE)-free survival rates (CABG 92.2% vs. HMR 89.8%). Results of observational and comparative studies show that minimally invasive HMR procedures in patients with multivessel CAD carry minimal perioperative mortality risk and low morbidity and do not increase the risk of postoperative bleeding. The advantage they offer in comparison to classical surgical revascularization is indeed faster rehabilitation and patient’s return to normal life.

Conclusion

Hybrid myocardial revascularization has been developed as a promising technique for the treatment of high-risk patients with CAD. Hybrid revascularization using minimally invasive surgical techniques combined with PCI offers to a part of patients an advantage of optimal revascularization of the most important artery of the heart, together with adequate myocardial revascularization in a relatively delicate way. Indeed, to patients with high operative risk of standard surgery, it offers an alternative which should be considered carefully.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fihn SD, Gardin JM, Abrams J, et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:44–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology. Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:123–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2541–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Angelini GD, Wilde P, Salerno TA, Bosco G, Calafiore AM. Integrated left small thoracotomy and angioplasty for multivessel coronary artery revascularisation. Lancet. 1996;347:757–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. No authors listed. Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Survival data. Circulation. 1983;68:939–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. No authors listed. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:217–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. No authors listed. The final 10-year follow-up results from the BARI randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1600–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Navarese EP, Tandjung K, Claessen B, et al. Safety and efficacy outcomes of first and second generation durable polymer drug eluting stents and biodegradable polymer biolimus eluting stents in clinical practice: comprehensive network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;347:f6530.

  9. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961–72.

  10. Mahmarian JJ, Pratt CM, Boyce TM, Verani MS. The variable extent of jeopardized myocardium in patients with single vessel coronary artery disease: quantification by thalium-201 single proton emission computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17:355–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Klein LW, Weintraub WS, Argawal JB, et al. Prognostic significance of severe narrowing of the proximal portion of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Am J Cardiol. 1986;58:42–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brener SJ, Lytle BW, Casserly IP, Schneider JP, Topol EJ, Lauer MS. Propensity analysis of long-term survival after surgical or percutaneous revascularisation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and high-risk features. Circulation. 2004;109:2290–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Otsuka F, Yahagi K, Sakakura K, Virmani R. Why is the mammary artery so special and what protects it from atherosclerosis? Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;2:519–26.

  14. Tatoulis J, Buxton BF, Fuller JA. Patencies of 2127 arterial to coronary conduits over 15 years. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:93–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hayward PA, Buxton BF. Contemporary coronary graft patency: 5-year observational data from a randomized trial of conduits. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;84:795–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Investigators BARI. The final 10-year follow-up results from the BARI randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:1600–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N. Engl J Med. 2012;367:2375–84.

  18. Puskas JD, Williams WH, Mahoney EM, et al. Off-pump vs conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: early and 1-year graft patency, cost, and quality-of-life outcomes: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2004;291:1841–9.

  19. Barner HB. Operative treatment of coronary atherosclerosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85:1473–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Alexander JH, Hafley G, Harrington RA, et al. Efficacy and safety of Edifoligide, an E2F transcription factor decoy for prevention of vein graft failure following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. PREVENT IV: a randomised controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;294:2446–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sabik JF 3rd, Lytle BW, Blackstone EH, Houghtaling PL, Cosgrove DM. Comparison of saphenous vein and internal thoracic artery graft patency by coronary system. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:544–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Khot UN, Friedman DT, Patterson G, Smedira NG, Li J, Ellis SG. Radial artery bypass grafts have an increased occurrence of angiographically severe stenosis and occlusion compared with left internal mammary arteries and saphenous vein grafts. Circulation. 2004;109:2086–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hayward PA, Gordon IR, Hare DL, et al. Comparable patencies of the radial artery and right internal thoracic artery or saphenous vein beyond 5 years: results from the radial artery patency and clinical outcomes trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139:60–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kouchoukos NT, Wareing TH, Murphy SF, Pelate C, Marshall WG Jr. Risks of bilateral mammary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 1990;49:210–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Grossi EA, Esposito R, Harris LJ, et al. Sternal wound infections and use of internal mammary artery grafts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1991;102:342–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stone GW, Midei M, Newman W, et al. Comparison of an everolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2008;299:1903–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Carrie D, Berland J, Verheye S, et al. A multicenter randomized trial comparing amphilimus- with paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo native coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1371–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stefanini GG, Serruys PW, Silber S, et al. The impact of patient and lesion complexity on clinical and angiographic outcomes after revascularization with zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents: a substudy of the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial (a randomized comparison of a zotarolimus-eluting stent with an everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:2221–32.

  29. Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, A, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2013;381:629–38.

  30. Farooq V, Serruys PW, Zhang Y, et al. Short-term and long-term clinical impact of stent thrombosis and graft occlusion in the SYNTAX Trial at 5 years: Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:2360–9.

  31. Cohen HA, Zenati M, Smith AJ, et al. Feasibility of combined percutaneously transluminal angioplasty and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1998;98:1048–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Elefteriades JA. Mini-CABG: a step forward or backward: the “pro” point of view. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1997;11:661–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Us MH, Basaran M, Yilmaz M, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularisation in high risk patients. Tex Heart Inst J. 2006;33:458–62.

  34. Hozhey DM, Jacobs S, Mochalski M, et al. Minimally invasive hybrid coronary artery revascularisation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86:1856–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kiaii B, McClure S, Stewart P, et al. Simultaneous integrated coronary artery revascularisation with long-term angiographic follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136:702–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Friedrich GJ, Dapunt OE, Pachinger O. More on “hybrid revascularization.”. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:861–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Serruys PW, Emanuelsson H, van der Giesen W, et al. Heparin-coated Palmaz-Schatz stents in human coronary arteries. Early outcome of the BENESTENT-II pilot study. Circulation. 1996;93:412–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kon ZN, Brown EN, Tran R, et al. Simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization reduces postoperative morbidity compared with results from conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135:367–75.

  39. Bachinsky WB, Abdelsalam M, Boga G, Kiljanek L, Mumtaz M, McCarty C. Comparative study of same sitting hybrid coronary artery revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass in multivessel coronary artery disease. J Interv Cardiol. 2012;25:460–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Byrne JG, Leacche M, Vaughan DE, Zhao DX. Hybrid cardiovascular procedures. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1:459–68.

  41. Panoulas VF, Colombo A, Margonato A, Maisano F. Hybrid coronary revascularization: promising, but yet to take off. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:85–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kettering K, Dapunt O, Baer FM. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;45:255–64.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Holzhey DM, Jacobs MD, Mochalski M, et al. Seven-year follow-up after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass: experience with more than 1300 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:108–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Vassiliades TA, Kilgo PD, Douglas JS, et al. Clinical outcomes after hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass: a prospective evaluation. Innovations (Phila). 2009;4:299–306.

  45. Vassiliades TA, Reddy VS, Puskas JD, Guyton RA. Long-term results of the endoscopic atraumatic coronary artery bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:979–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Byhahn C, Mierdl S, Meininger D, et al. Hemodynamics and gas exchange during carbon dioxide insufflation for totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;71:1496–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Subramanian VA, Patel NU, Patel NC, Loulmet DF. Robotic assisted multivessel minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass with port-access stabilisation and cardiac positioning: paving the way for outpatient coronary surgery? Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:1590–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. De Rose JJ Jr, Balaram SK, Ro C, et al. Mid-term results and patient perceptions of robotically- assisted coronary artery bypass grafting. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2005;4:406–11.

  49. De Rose JJ Jr, Balaram SK, Ro C, et al. Mid-term results and patient perceptions of robotically- assisted coronary artery bypass grafting. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2005;4:406–11.

  50. Srivastava S, Gadasalli S, Agusala M, et al. Beating heart totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:1873–9.

  51. Haude M, Erbel R, Erne P, et al. Safety and performance of the drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold (DREAMS) in patients with de-novo coronary lesions: 12 month results of the prospective, multicentre, first-in-man BIOSOLVE-I trial. Lancet. 2013;381:836–44.

  52. Shen L, Hu S, Wang H, et al. One-stop hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease: three-year follow-up results from a single institution. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2525–33.

  53. Leacche M, Byrne JG, Solenkova NS, et al. Comparison of 30-day outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery versus hybrid coronary revascularization stratified by SYNTAX and euroSCORE. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145:1004–12.

  54. Hu S, Li Q, Gao P, et al. Simultaneous hybrid revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass for multivessel coronary artery disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:432–8.

  55. Halkos ME, Vassiliades TA, Douglas JS, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:1695–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Halkos ME, Rab ST, Vassiliades TA, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass for the treatment of left main coronary stenosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:2155–60.

  57. Kon ZN, Kwon MH, Collins MJ, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass leads to a regional hypercoagulable state not detectable using systemic markers. Innovations (Phila). 2006;1:232–8.

  58. Reicher B, Poston RS, Mehra MR, Joshi A, Odonkor P, Kon Z, et al. Simultaneous 'hybrid' percutaneous coronary intervention and minimally invasive surgical bypass grafting: feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes. Am Heart J. 2008;155:661–7.

  59. de Cannière D, Jansens JL, Goldschmidt-Clermont P, Barvais L, Decroly P, Stoupel E. Combination of minimally invasive coronary bypass and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in the treatment of double-vessel coronary disease: two-year follow-up of a new hybrid procedure compared with 'on-pump' double bypass grafting. Am Heart J. 2001;142:563–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Stahl KD, Boyd WD, Vassiliades TA, et al. Hybrid robotic coronary artery surgery and angioplasty in multi-vessel coronary artery disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74:S1358–62.

  61. Davidavicius G, Van Praet F, Mansour S, et al. Hybrid revascularisation strategy: a pilot study on the association of robotically enhanced minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery and fractional-flow-reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2005;112:I317–22.

  62. Gasior M, Zembala MO, Tajstra M, et al. Hybrid revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:1277–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Ganyukov V, Kochergin N, Shilov A, et al. The comparative effectiveness of hybrid revascularization (MIDCAB Then PCI) with DES versus multivessel DES PCI or CABG (HREVS). Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01699048.

  64. Puskas JD, Halkos ME, JJ DR, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease: a multicenter observational study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:356–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhu P, Zhou P, Sun Y, Guo Y, Mai M, Zheng S. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary artery disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;10:63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Harskamp RE, Williams JB, Halkos ME, et al. Meta-analysis of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass versus drug-eluting stents for isolated left anterior descending coronary artery disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:1837–42.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, Okhla Road, New Delhi, 110025, India

    Yugal Kishore Mishra & Jatin Yadav

Authors
  1. Yugal Kishore Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jatin Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yugal Kishore Mishra.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies involving human or animals.

Informed consent

Not applicable as no human subjects involved.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mishra, Y.K., Yadav, J. Hybrid myocardial revascularization. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 34 (Suppl 3), 310–320 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-018-0646-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-018-0646-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation