Key result
HCR shows no short-term MACCE difference versus PCI but yields higher rates than OPCAB.
Why the study?
Does hybrid coronary revascularization improve clinical outcomes compared to PCI or off-pump CABG in patients with MVD or LMCA disease?
Meta-Analysis (n=4,858)
Does hybrid coronary revascularization improve clinical outcomes compared to PCI or off-pump CABG in patients with MVD or LMCA disease?
Odds Ratio: 0.51 (95% CI 0–2.35)
Hybrid coronary revascularization appears to be a feasible and potentially superior strategy for MACCE and MI in the short and midterm for patients with MVD and LMCA disease, though larger trials are needed.
Supports HCR as feasible alternative to CABG with fewer transfusions and shorter stays; leaves open need for larger RCTs on long-term MACCE.
Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR), a new minimally invasive procedure for patients requiring revascularization for multivessel coronary lesions, combines coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left anterior descending (LAD) lesions and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD coronary lesions. However, available data related to outcomes comparing the 3 revascularization therapies is limited to small studies.We conducted a search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials up to December 31, 2014, without language restriction. A total of 16 randomized trials (n=4858 patients) comparing HCR versus PCI or off-pump CABG (OPCAB) were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular events (CVE), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effect and fixed-effect models. Ranking probabilities were used to calculate a summary numerical value: the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve.No significant differences were seen between the HCR and PCI in short term (in hospital and 30 days) with regard to MACCE (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.00-2.35), all-cause death (OR = 2.09, 95% CI 0.34-7.66), MI (OR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.19-2.95), CVE (OR = 4.45, 95% CI 0.39-19.16), and TVR (OR = 6.99, 95% CI 0.17-39.39). However, OPCAB had lower MACCE than HCR (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.00-0.95). In midterm (1 year and 3 year), in comparison with HCR, PCI had higher all-cause death (OR = 5.66, 95% CI 0.00-13.88) and CVE (OR = 4.40, 95% CI 0.01-5.68), and lower MI (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.86), TVR (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.05-2.26), and thus the MACCE (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.35). Off-pump CABG presented a better outcome than HCR with significant lower MACCE (OR = 0.17, 95% CI 0.01-0.68). Surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities showed that HCR may be the superior strategy for MVD and LMCA disease when regarded to MACCE (SUCRA = 0.84), MI (SUCRA = 0.76) in short term, and regarded to MACCE (SUCRA = 0.99), MI (SUCRA = 0.94), and CVE (SUCRA = 0.92) in midterm.Hybrid coronary revascularization seemed to be a feasible and acceptable option for treatment of LMCA disease and MVD. More powerful evidences are required to precisely evaluate risks and benefits of the 3 therapies for patients who have different clinical characteristics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fan et al. (2015) conducted a meta-analysis in Multivessel coronary lesions or left main coronary artery disease (n=4,858). Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) vs. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or off-pump CABG (OPCAB) was evaluated on Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.00-2.35). Hybrid coronary revascularization showed no significant difference in short-term MACCE compared to PCI (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.00-2.35), but OPCAB had lower short-term MACCE than HCR.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: