Comparison of Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients ≥65 Years With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

Comparison of Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients ≥65 Years With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease

American Journal of Cardiology, May 2014

24878119

Ralf E. Harskamp, John D. Puskas, Jan G. Tijssen, Patrick F. Walker, Henry A. Liberman, Renato D. Lopes, Thomas A. Vassiliades, Eric D. Peterson, Michael E. Halkos

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive left internal mammary artery-to-left anterior descending coronary artery grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention of non-left anterior descending coronary arteries. The safety and efficacy of HCR in patients ≥65 years of age is unknown. In this study, patients aged ≥65 years were included who underwent HCR at an academic center from October 2003 to September 2013. These patients were matched 1:4 to similar patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using a propensity-score matching algorithm. Conditional logistic regression and Cox regression stratified on matched pairs were performed to evaluate the association between HCR and CABG, and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (a composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke), periprocedural complications, and 3-year all-cause mortality. Of 715 patients (143 of whom underwent HCR and 572 CABG) in the propensity score-matched cohort, rates of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were comparable after HCR and CABG (5.6% vs 3.8%, odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 3.27, p = 0.36). Compared with CABG, HCR resulted in fewer procedural complications (9.1% vs 18.2%, p = 0.018), fewer blood transfusions (28.0% vs 53.3%, p <0.0001), less chest tube drainage (838 ± 484 vs 1,100 ± 579 cm(3), p <0.001), and shorter lengths of stay (<5 days: 45.5% vs 27.4%, p = 0.001). Over a 3-year follow-up period, mortality rates were similar after HCR and CABG (13.2% vs 16.6%, hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 1.43, p = 0.47). Subgroup analyses in high-risk patients (Charlson index ≥6, age ≥75 years) rendered similar results. In conclusion, although the present data are limited, we found that in older patients, the use of HCR is safe, has fewer procedural complications, entails less blood product use, and results in faster recovery with similar longitudinal outcomes relative to conventional CABG.