Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) versuscoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD): A meta-analysis of 14 studies comprising 4226 patients.

Abstract

To compare the outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with traditional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). HCR has emerged as an alternative to CABG in patients with MVCAD. Through minimally invasive surgical techniques, HCR carries the potential for faster recovery postoperatively, fewer complications, and lower utilization of resources. Systematic search of electronic databases was conducted up to December 2021 and studies comparing HCR with CABG in the treatment of MVCAD were included in this meta-analysis. Primary outcomes of interest were incidence of 5-year mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE). Fourteen studies (12 observational studies and 2randomized controlled trials) comprising 4226 patients were included. The rates of 5-year mortality (odds ratios[OR]: 1.55; 95%confidence interval[CI]: 0.92-2.62; I2 = 83.0%) and long-term MACCE (OR: 0.97; 95%CI: 0.47-2.01; I2 = 74.7%) were comparable between HCR and CABG groups. HCR was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of perioperative blood transfusion (OR: 0.36; 95%CI: 0.25-0.51; I2 = 55.9%), shorter mean hospital stay (weighted mean difference: -2.04; 95%CI: -2.60 to -1.47; I2 = 54%), and risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (OR: 0.45; 95%CI: 0.23-0.88; p = 0.02). CABG demonstrated a lower likelihood of requiring long-term repeat revascularization (OR: 1.51; 95%CI: 1.03-2.20; I2 = 18%) over a follow-up duration of 29.14 ± 21.75 months. This meta-analysis suggests that HCR is feasible and safe for the treatment of MVCAD. However, benefits of HCR should be carefully weighed against the increased long-term risk of repeat-revascularization when selecting patients, and further studies evaluating differences in long-term mortality between HCR and CABG are required.