Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.

Objectives This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). Background HCR involves a combination of surgical and percutaneous techniques, which in selected patients may present an alternative to conventional CABG. Methods Databases were searched through June 30, 2016, and studies comparing HCR with CABG for treatment of MVCAD were selected. We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs with the random-effects model. The primary outcome of interest was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as a composite of all cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Results The analysis included 2,245 patients from 8 studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 7 observational studies). The risk of MACCE with HCR and CABG were 3.6% and 5.4%, respectively (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.24–1.16). Compared to CABG group, patients in HCR group had similar risk of all cause mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.38–1.88), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.31–1.64), stroke (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.23–1.20), and repeat revascularization (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.58–2.83). The need for postoperative blood transfusions (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14–0.59) and hospital stay (weighted mean difference −1.20 days; 95% CI −1.52 to −0.88 days) was significantly lower in the HCR group. Conclusion HCR appears to be safe, and has similar outcomes when compared with conventional CABG. HCR can be a suitable alternative to conventional CABG in select patients with MVCAD. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.