Comparative Results of Standard Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting, Staged Hybrid Myocardial Revascularization and Purely Endovascular Correction in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease in Long-Term Period after Surgery

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Coronary artery disease (CAD) currently remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Russia and in the world. In 2022, the overall morbidity with CAD among the adult population of Russia was 6517.9 per 100 thousand populations. The main surgical methods of treatment for CAD are coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and stenting of the coronary arteries. In some cases, a single-step complete revascularization is not possible, and one of solutions is a hybrid approach.

AIM: To compare 5-year results of CABG, staged hybrid myocardial revascularization and isolated endovascular intervention in patients with CAD and multi-vessel lesion of the coronary arteries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prospective study included 330 patients with CAD and multi-vessel atherosclerotic lesion of the coronary arteries, who underwent planned myocardial revascularization in 2010–2018. Group 1 included 110 patients who underwent CABG, group 2 — 110 patients who underwent staged hybrid myocardial revascularization, group 3 included 110 patients after percutaneous coronary intervention. In 5-year follow-up period, clinical and instrumental data were evaluated, complications, lethal outcomes and re-interventions were considered.

RESULTS: In the immediate period after the surgical intervention, frequency of cardiovascular complications and residual myocardial ischemia was expectedly low in all the groups (р > 0.05). At 1 year of follow-up, cardiovascular complications were less common in group 2 (17.3%) compared to group 1 (29.1%, p = 0.038), while in group 3, adverse events were also noted in 27.3% of cases, however, the differences were not significant (p = 0.075). At 5 years, the frequency of cardiovascular complications prevailed in patients of group 1 (80.0%) compared to group 2 (57.3%) and group 3 (67.3%, p = 0.001–0.032). At the end of follow-up, the frequency of repeat revascularization was significantly higher in group 1 (41.8%) compared to group 2 (29.1%, p = 0.049). The number of such cases in group 3 (33.6%) was less than in group 1, however, the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.125).

CONCLUSION: Isolated CABG demonstrates a higher frequency of repeat endovascular interventions at 5 years after surgery compared to hybrid revascularization that also provides better results in terms of preventing cardiovascular complications.

Keywords

CAD / coronary artery bypass grafting / percutaneous coronary intervention / hybrid myocardial revascularization

References

[1] Boytsov SA, Provatorov SI. Possibilities of dispensary observation in reducing mortality from coronary heart disease. Therapeutic Archive. 2023;95(1):5–10. (In Russ). doi: 10.26442/00403660.2023.01.202038

[2] Бойцов С.А., Проваторов С.И. Возможности диспансерного наблюдения в снижении смертности от ишемической болезни сердца // Терапевтический архив. 2023. Т. 95, № 1. С. 5–10. doi: 10.26442/00403660.2023.01.202038

[3] Lawton JS, Tamis–Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145(3): e18–114. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001038

[4] Lawton J.S., Tamis–Holland J.E., Bangalore S., et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines // Circulation. 2022. Vol. 145, No. 3. P. e18–e114. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001038

[5] Gulkarov I, Salemi A, Pawlikowski A, et al. Outcomes and Direct Cost of Isolated Nonemergent CABG in Patients With Low Ejection Fraction. Innovations (Phila). 2023;18(6):557–64. doi: 10.1177/15569845231207335

[6] Gulkarov I., Salemi A., Pawlikowski A., et al. Outcomes and Direct Cost of Isolated Nonemergent CABG in Patients With Low Ejection Fraction // Innovations (Phila). 2023. Vol. 18, No. 6. P. 557–564. doi: 10.1177/15569845231207335

[7] Neumann F–J, Sousa–Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87–165. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394

[8] Neumann F.–J., Sousa–Uva M., Ahlsson A., et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization // Eur. Heart J. 2019. Vol. 40, No. 2. P. 87–165. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394

[9] Ziankov AA, Ostrovskij UP, Vuhristenko KS, et al. Comparative analysis of the results of minimally invasive myocardial revascularization and coronary artery bypass grafting on the beating heart and with artificial blood circulation. Novosti Khirurgii. 2014;22(1):33–43. (In Russ).

[10] Зеньков А.А., Островский Ю.П., Выхристенко К.С., и др. Сравнительный анализ результатов миниинвазивной реваскуляризации миокарда, коронарного шунтирования на работающем сердце и с искусственным кровообращением // Новости хирургии. 2014. Т. 22, № 1. С. 33–43.

[11] Komarov RN, Ismailbaev AM, Kadyraliyev BK, et al. Complete myocardial revascularization in patients with multiple-vessel coronary artery disease and partial or complete absence of the grafts for coronary artery bypass surgery. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2020;(9):109–15. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/hirurgia2020091109

[12] Комаров Р.Н., Исмаилбаев А.М., Кадыралиев Б.К., и др. Современные подходы к полной реваскуляризации миокарда у пациентов с многососудистым поражением коронарных артерий и частичным или полным отсутствием трансплантатов для коронарного шунтирования // Хирургия. Журнал им. Н.И. Пирогова. 2020. № 9. С. 109–115. doi: 10.17116/hirurgia2020091109

[13] Akbari T, Al-Lamee R. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Multi-Vessel Disease. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2022;44:80–91. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2022.06.254

[14] Akbari T., Al-Lamee R. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Multi-Vessel Disease // Cardiovasc. Revasc. Med. 2022. Vol. 44. P. 80–91. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2022.06.254

[15] Shevchenko YuL, Ermakov DYu, Maslennikov MA, et al. Tactics of Endovascular Treatment of Patients with Coronary Heart Disease with Recurrent Coronary In-Stent Restenosis Using Second- and Third-Generation Stent Systems and Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Catheters. I. P. Pavlov Russian Medical Biological Herald. 2024;32(1):5–16. (In Russ). doi: 10.17816/PAVLOVJ625996

[16] Шевченко Ю.Л., Ермаков Д.Ю., Масленников М.А., и др. Тактика эндоваскулярного лечения больных ишемической болезнью сердца с рецидивом внутристентового рестеноза коронарных артерий с использованием стент-систем второго и третьего поколения и покрытых паклитакселем баллонных катетеров // Российский медико-биологический вестник имени академика И. П. Павлова. 2024. Т. 32, № 1. С. 5–16. doi: 10.17816/PAVLOVJ625996

[17] Thuijs DJFM, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW, et al.; SYNTAX Extended Survival Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10206):1325–34. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31997-x

[18] Thuijs D.J.F.M., Kappetein A.P., Serruys P.W., et al.; SYNTAX Extended Survival Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial // Lancet. 2019. Vol. 394, No. 10206. P. 1325–1334. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(19)31997-x

[19] Burzotta F, Lassen JF, Lefèvre T, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation coronary lesions: the 15th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2021;16(16):1307–17. doi: 10.4244/eij-d-20-00169

[20] Burzotta F., Lassen J.F., Lefèvre T., et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation coronary lesions: the 15th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club // EuroIntervention. 2021. Vol. 16, No. 16. P. 1307–1317. doi: 10.4244/eij-d-20-00169

[21] Azzalini L, Karmpaliotis D, Santiago R, et al. Contemporary Issues in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;15(1):1–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.09.027

[22] Azzalini L., Karmpaliotis D., Santiago R., et al. Contemporary Issues in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention // JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2022. Vol. 15, No. 1. P. 1–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2021.09.027

[23] Shah M, Najam O, Bhindi R, et al. Calcium Modification Techniques in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(5):e009870. doi: 10.1161/circinterventions.120.009870

[24] Shah M., Najam O., Bhindi R., et al. Calcium Modification Techniques in Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention // Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021. Vol. 14, No. 5. P. e009870. doi: 10.1161/circinterventions.120.009870

[25] Petrosyan KV. Current status and perspective on hybrid myocardial revascularization. Russian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2020;62(3):177–86. (In Russ). doi: 10.24022/0236-2791-2020-62-3-177-186

[26] Петросян К.В. Современное состояние и перспективы развития гибридной реваскуляризации миокарда // Грудная и сердечнососудистая хирургия. 2020. Т. 62, № 3. С. 177–186. doi: 10.24022/ 0236-2791-2020-62-3-177-186

[27] Nenna A, Nappi F, Spadaccio C, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review. Future Cardiol. 2022;18(3):219–34. doi: 10.2217/fca-2020-0244

[28] Nenna A., Nappi F., Spadaccio C., et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization in multivessel coronary artery disease: a systematic review // Future Cardiol. 2022. Vol. 18, No. 3. P. 219–234. doi: 10.2217/fca-2020-0244

[29] Shevchenko YuL, Ermakov DYu, Marchak DI. Dysfunction of coronary bypass grafts and stents after surgical myocardial revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease: pathogenesis, risk factors and clinical assessment. Bulletin of Pirogov national medical and surgical Center. 2022;17(3):94–100. (In Russ). doi: 10.25881/20728255_2022_17_3_94

[30] Шевченко Ю.Л., Ермаков Д.Ю., Марчак Д.И. Дисфункция коронарных шунтов и стентов после хирургической реваскуляризации миокарда больных ИБС: патогенез, факторы риска и клиническая оценка // Вестник Национального медико-хирургического центра им. Н.И. Пирогова. 2022. Т. 17, № 3. С. 94–100. doi: 10.25881/20728255_2022_17_3_94

[31] Ganyukov VI, Kochergin NA, Shilov AA, et al. Randomized Clinical Trial of Hybrid vs. Surgical vs. Percutaneous Multivessel Coronary Revascularization: 5 year Follow-up of HREVS Trial. Kardiologiia. 2023;63(11):57–63. (In Russ). doi: 10.18087/cardio.2023.11.n2475

[32] Ганюков В.И., Кочергин Н.А., Шилов А.А., и др. Рандомизированное исследование гибридной коронарной реваскуляризации в сравнении со стандартными аортокоронарным шунтированием и многососудистым стентированием: 5-летние результаты исследования HREVS // Кардиология. 2023. Т. 63, № 11. С. 57–63. doi: 10.18087/cardio.2023.11.n2475

[33] Hu S, Li Q, Gao P, et al. Simultaneous hybrid revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass for multivessel coronary artery disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91(2):432–8. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.10.020

[34] Hu S., Li Q., Gao P., et al. Simultaneous hybrid revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass for multivessel coronary artery disease // Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2011. Vol. 91, No. 2. P. 432–438. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.10.020

[35] Hage A, Giambruno V, Jones P, et al. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Comparative Effectiveness Analysis With Long-Term Follow-up. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8(24):e014204. doi: 10.1161/jaha.119.014204

[36] Hage A., Giambruno V., Jones P., et al. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Comparative Effectiveness Analysis With Long-Term Follow-up // J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2019. Vol. 8, No. 24. P. e014204. doi: 10.1161/jaha.119.014204

[37] Giambruno V, Jones P, Khaliel F, et al. Hybrid Coronary Revascu-larization Versus On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105(5):1330–5. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.11.019

[38] Giambruno V., Jones P., Khaliel F., et al. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting // Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2018. Vol. 105, No. 5. P. 1330–1335. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.11.019

[39] Hannan EL, Wu Y–F, Cozzens K, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization vs. percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel coronary artery disease. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2021;18(3):159–67. doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2021.03.003

[40] Hannan E.L., Wu Y.–F., Cozzens K., et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization vs. percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel coronary artery disease // J. Geriatr. Cardiol. 2021. Vol. 18, No. 3. P. 159–167. doi: 10.11909/j.issn.1671-5411.2021.03.003

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Eco-Vector