[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objectives:
Cardiac ischaemic marker release is associated with adverse clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery. We sought to compare the release of cardiac troponin I (cTnI) after hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB).
Using data from a prospective single-centre registry, we compared cTnI measured at postoperative day 1 following one-stage HCR and OPCAB among patients with normal baseline cTnI. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to adjust for variables that may have influenced cardiac marker release other than the used revascularization strategy.
Sixty-five consecutive patients underwent elective HCR (n = 33) or OPCAB (n = 32). Overall, no differences were seen in comorbidities, CABG risk scores and the lesion-specific SYNTAX score. Procedural complications were lower (15.2 vs 34.4%, P = 0.072), but 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization) were similar between the two groups (3.0 vs 3.1% and 9.1 vs 6.2%, respectively). Post-procedural cTnI release measured at 24 h after surgery was significantly lower following HCR compared with OPCAB [ratio of upper reference level URL: median: 3.5, interquartile range (IQR): 0.8-9.1 vs 12.8, IQR: 6.9-21.8, P = 0.001]. After adjusting for potential confounders, HCR was associated, on average, with cTnI less than half (46%) compared with CABG (P <0.0001).
HCR is associated with lower postoperative cTn release, compared with OPCAB. Further research into the clinical implications of this finding is warranted.
Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery 09/2014; 19(6). DOI:10.1093/icvts/ivu297 · 1.16 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective: We compared the outcomes of same sitting robotic-assisted hybrid coronary artery revascularization (HCR) with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) in similar patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.
Background: HCR is a novel procedure in selected patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Although there are some data on staged HCR, the data on same sitting HCR are limited.
Methods: We conducted a prospective study comparing same sitting robotic-assisted HCR patients (n = 25) to a group of consecutive low to moderate risk OPCABG patients (n = 27) during the study period. HCR patients underwent robotic internal mammary artery takedown followed by OPCABG via minithoracotomy. After confirming graft patency, immediate percutaneous coronary intervention on the nonbypass arteries was performed. Comparative analyses were performed on in-hospital and 30 day outcomes.
Results: The baseline characteristics were similar for both groups including the severity of CAD (Syntax score 33.5+/−8.2 vs. 34.9+/−8.2, P = 0.556). Overall MACE was similar between both groups; however, the HCR group showed improved hospital outcomes with lower need for postoperative transfusions (12% vs. 67%, P < 0.001), and shorter length of hospital stay (5.1+/−2.8 vs. 8.2+/−5.4 days, P < 0.01). Despite lower postoperative costs, the HCR group had higher overall hospital costs due to higher procedural costs ($33,984 +/−$4,806 vs. $27,816+/−$11,172, P < 0.0001). Propensity model analysis showed similar findings. The HCR group showed improved quality of life measures with shorter time to return to work (5.3+/−3.0 vs. 8.2+/− 4.6 weeks, P = 0.01).
Conclusions: Same sitting HCR appears to be feasible and may offer superior outcomes to standard OPCABG, further studies are warranted. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;25:460–468)