Key result
Hybrid coronary revascularization showed no significant difference in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events compared to conventional CABG at 3.6 years (OR 1.40; 95% CI 0.46-4.30; p=0.55).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to evaluate the in-hospital and medium-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting in a real-world setting.
Does hybrid coronary revascularization improve clinical outcomes compared to conventional CABG in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease?
Observational
No
Does hybrid coronary revascularization improve clinical outcomes compared to conventional CABG in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease?
Hybrid coronary revascularization appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to conventional CABG, offering similar medium-term clinical outcomes with reduced in-hospital bleeding and shorter hospital stays.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the in-hospital and medium-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) in the real-world setting compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: All patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD) who underwent conventional CABG and HCR in our institution between January 2018 to January 2021 were evaluated in terms of length of intensive care unit (ICU), in-hospital stay, repeat revascularization rates, bleeding, stroke, and in-hospital mortality. Clinical outcomes (mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [MACCE]) were assessed at average follow up of 3.6 years. RESULTS: Pre-procedural characteristics were balanced between the groups after propensity score matching. There was no significant difference in MACCE [Odds ratio: 0.57; 95 % CI: 0.05 to 1.52; p = 0.66], in-hospital mortality [n = 2 (1.9 %) vs n = 0; p = 0.80], post procedure stroke [n = 2 (1.9 %) vs n = 2 (3.7 %); p = 0.86], post-procedural myocardial infarction requiring repeat revascularization [n = 2 (1.9 %) versus n = 1 (1.9 %); p = 1] during the in-hospital stay of the patients in the CABG vs HCR groups respectively. HCR was associated with significantly lower requirement for blood transfusions, bleeding risk, in-hospital stay, and intensive care unit stay. Analysis of the outcomes after 3.6 years revealed no significant difference in MACCE [Odds ratio: 1.40; 95 % CI: 0.46 to 4.30; p = 0.55], and post discharge mortality [n = 0 vs n = 0; p = 1]. Both groups had similar rates of post-procedural myocardial infarction requiring repeat revascularization [n = 0 vs n = 4 (7.4 %); p = 0.278], and rate of re-intervention [n = 0 vs n = 3 (5.6 %); p = 0.41]. CONCLUSION: HCR may be considered as a safe and feasible alternative to conventional CABG in selected individuals with MV-CAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kaliyamoorthy et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Multi-vessel coronary artery disease. Hybrid coronary revascularization vs. Conventional coronary artery bypass grafting was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 3.6 years (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.46-4.30, p=0.55). Hybrid coronary revascularization showed no significant difference in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events compared to conventional CABG at 3.6 years (OR 1.40; 95% CI 0.46-4.30; p=0.55).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: