Indian Heart Journal (Mar 2025)

Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional Coronary Artery Bypass surgery in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease in a real-world setting: In-hospital outcomes and medium-term follow-up: COHOS study

  • Dhamodaran Kaliyamoorthy,
  • Meeranghani Mohamed Yusuf,
  • Vadivelu Ramalingam,
  • Abhishek Kasha,
  • Manickam Kathiresan,
  • Rizwan Suliankatchi Abdulkader,
  • Jeyashree Kathiresan,
  • Aishwarya Mahesh Kumar,
  • Elsa Grace,
  • Anirban Choudhury

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihj.2025.03.002
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 77, no. 2
pp. 98 – 104

Abstract

Read online

Objectives: The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the in-hospital and medium-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) in the real-world setting compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: All patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD) who underwent conventional CABG and HCR in our institution between January 2018 to January 2021 were evaluated in terms of length of intensive care unit (ICU), in-hospital stay, repeat revascularization rates, bleeding, stroke, and in-hospital mortality. Clinical outcomes (mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [MACCE]) were assessed at average follow up of 3.6 years. Results: Pre-procedural characteristics were balanced between the groups after propensity score matching. There was no significant difference in MACCE [Odds ratio: 0.57; 95 % CI: 0.05 to 1.52; p = 0.66], in-hospital mortality [n = 2 (1.9 %) vs n = 0; p = 0.80], post procedure stroke [n = 2 (1.9 %) vs n = 2 (3.7 %); p = 0.86], post-procedural myocardial infarction requiring repeat revascularization [n = 2 (1.9 %) versus n = 1 (1.9 %); p = 1] during the in-hospital stay of the patients in the CABG vs HCR groups respectively. HCR was associated with significantly lower requirement for blood transfusions, bleeding risk, in-hospital stay, and intensive care unit stay. Analysis of the outcomes after 3.6 years revealed no significant difference in MACCE [Odds ratio: 1.40; 95 % CI: 0.46 to 4.30; p = 0.55], and post discharge mortality [n = 0 vs n = 0; p = 1]. Both groups had similar rates of post-procedural myocardial infarction requiring repeat revascularization [n = 0 vs n = 4 (7.4 %); p = 0.278], and rate of re-intervention [n = 0 vs n = 3 (5.6 %); p = 0.41]. Conclusion: HCR may be considered as a safe and feasible alternative to conventional CABG in selected individuals with MV-CAD.

Keywords