Search

Objectives: To compare the outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with traditional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD)., Background: HCR has emerged as an alternative to CABG in patients with MVCAD. Through minimally invasive surgical techniques, HCR carries the potential for faster recovery postoperatively, fewer complications, and lower utilization of resources., Methods: Systematic search of electronic databases was conducted up to December 2021 and studies comparing HCR with CABG in the treatment of MVCAD were included in this meta-analysis. Primary outcomes of interest were incidence of 5-year mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE)., Results: Fourteen studies (12 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials) comprising 4226 patients were included. The rates of 5-year mortality (odds ratios [OR]: 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.62; I 2  = 83.0%) and long-term MACCE (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.47-2.01; I 2  = 74.7%) were comparable between HCR and CABG groups. HCR was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of perioperative blood transfusion (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.25-0.51; I 2  = 55.9%), shorter mean hospital stay (weighted mean difference: -2.04; 95% CI: -2.60 to -1.47; I 2  = 54%), and risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.23-0.88; p = 0.02). CABG demonstrated a lower likelihood of requiring long-term repeat revascularization (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.03-2.20; I 2  = 18%) over a follow-up duration of 29.14 ± 21.75 months., Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that HCR is feasible and safe for the treatment of MVCAD. However, benefits of HCR should be carefully weighed against the increased long-term risk of repeat-revascularization when selecting patients, and further studies evaluating differences in long-term mortality between HCR and CABG are required., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The use of the HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is expanding. Despite being associated with lower rates of adverse events and increased survival, outflow graft obstruction (OGO) has been reported in patients with HM3. The incidence and best management of this serious complication remain unclear., Methods: We describe six cases of HM3 OGO occurring in five patients in our institutional HM3 cohort. Four cases underwent computed tomography angiography and in two percutaneous angiography was directly performed to confirm the diagnosis. In four cases, percutaneous repair of the OG was performed using common interventional cardiology (IC) techniques., Results: Our institutional incidence of OGO was 7% (event rate of 0.05 per patient year); much higher than the previously reported incidence of 1.6%. All cases occurred in the bend relief covered segment. Only two patients had apparent OG twisting, and in two, OGO occurred despite placement of an anti-twist clip at the time of implant. External compression seems to play a role in most cases. Balloon "graftoplasty" and stent deployment via the femoral artery alleviated the obstruction and normalized LVAD flow in all patients who underwent percutaneous repair. The use of self-expanding stents allowed for downsizing of the procedural access site to 10 Fr. No serious procedure-related complications occurred., Conclusion: OGO is common in HM3 patients, external compression due to biomaterial accumulated surrounding the OG is a common etiology. Percutaneous repair using standard IC techniques is safe and feasible in cases of compression with or without partial twisting., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)