Hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: Systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Medicine (Baltimore) 2018-08, Vol.97 (33), p.e11941-e11941
• Main Authors: Reynolds, Alexander C., King, Nicola
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Blood Transfusion - statistics & numerical data; Coronary Artery Bypass - methods; Coronary Artery Disease - surgery; Female; Hospital Costs - statistics & numerical data; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - methods; Respiration, Artificial - statistics & numerical data; Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0025-7974; 1536-5964
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011941

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combining minimally invasive grafting of the left internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending artery with percutaneous coronary intervention has become a viable option for treating coronary artery disease. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in a range of clinical outcomes and hospital costs. To identify potential studies, systematic searches were carried out in various databases. The key search terms included "hybrid revascularization" AND "coronary artery bypass grafting" OR "HCR" OR "CABG." This was followed by a meta-analysis investigating the need for blood transfusion, hospital costs, ventilation time, hospital stay, cerebrovascular accident, myocardial infarction, mortality, postoperative atrial fibrillation, renal failure, operation duration, and ICU stay. The requirement for blood transfusion was significantly lower for HCR: odds ratio 0.38 (95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.31-0.46, P