Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Comparative Effectiveness Analysis With Long-Term Follow-up

Background Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involves the integration of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention to treat multivessel coronary artery disease. Our objective was to perform a comparative analysis with long-term follow-up between HCR and conventional off-pump CABG. Methods and Results We compared all double off-pump CABG (n=216) and HCR (n=147; robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct CABG of the left internal thoracic artery to the left anterior descending artery and percutaneous coronary intervention to one of the non-left anterior descending vessels) performed at a single institution between March 2004 and November 2015. To adjust for the selection bias of receiving either off-pump CABG or HCR, we performed a propensity score analysis using inverse-probability weighting. Both groups had similar results in terms of re-exploration for bleeding, perioperative myocardial infarction, stroke, blood transfusion, in-hospital mortality, and intensive care unit length of stay. HCR was associated with a higher in-hospital reintervention rate (CABG 0% versus HCR 3.4%; P=0.03), lower prolonged mechanical ventilation (>24 hours) rate (4% versus 0.7%; P=0.02), and shorter hospital length of stay (8.1±5.8  versus 4.5±2.1 days; P<0.001). After a median follow-up of 81 (48-113) months for the off-pump CABG and 96 (53-115) months for HCR, the HCR group of patients had a trend toward improved survival (85% versus 96%; P=0.054). Freedom from any form of revascularization was similar between the 2 groups (92% versus 91%; P=0.80). Freedom from angina was better in the HCR group (73% versus 90%; P<0.001). Conclusions HCR seems to provide, in selected patients, a shorter postoperative recovery, with similar excellent short- and long-term outcomes when compared with standard off-pump CABG.