RESUMEN
Abstract Background: Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) is one of the standard treatments for coronary artery disease (CAD) while hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) represents an evolving revascularization strategy. However, the difference in outcomes between them remains unclear. Objective: We performed a meta-analysis to compare the short-term and mid-term outcomes of HCR versus OPCAB for the treatment of multivessel or left main CAD. Methods: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane databases to identify related studies and a routine meta-analysis was conducted. Results: Nine studies with 6121 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in short-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.30-1.03, p = 0.06) or mortality (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.17-1.48, p = 0.22). HCR required less ventilator time (SMD: -0.36, 95% CI: -0.55- -0.16, p < 0.001), ICU stay (SMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.58 - -0.13, p < 0.01), hospital stay (SMD: -0.29, 95% CI: -0.50- -0.07, p < 0.05) and blood transfusion rate (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.49-0.67, p < 0.001), but needed more operation time (SMD: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.54-2.05, p < 0.001) and hospitalization costs (SMD: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.45-1.66, p < 0.001). The HCR group had lower mid-term MACCE rate (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26-0.92, p < 0.05) but higher rate in mid-term target vessel revascularization (TVR, RR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.32-3.67, p < 0.01). Conclusions: HCR had similar short-term mortality and morbidity comparing to OPCAB. HCR decreased the ventilator time, ICU stay, hospital stay, blood transfusion rate and increased operation time and hospitalization costs. HCR has a lower mid-term MACCE rate while OPCAB shows better in mid-term TVR.
Resumo Fundamentos: A revascularização do miocárdio sem circulação extracorpórea (CRM sem CEC) é um dos tratamentos padrão para a doença arterial coronária (DAC), enquanto que a revascularização coronária híbrida (RCH) é uma estratégia de revascularização em evolução. No entanto, a diferença nos resultados entre eles ainda não está clara. Objetivo: Realizamos uma meta-análise para comparar os resultados a curto e médio prazo da RCH versus a CRM sem CEC para o tratamento de DAC de múltiplos vasos ou artéria principal esquerda. Métodos: Pesquisamos as bases de dados PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science e Cochrane para identificar estudos relacionados e realizamos uma meta-análise de rotina. Resultados: Nove estudos com 6121 pacientes foram incluídos na análise. Não houve diferença significativa na taxa de eventos cardíacos e cerebrovasculares adversos maiores de curto prazo (ECCAM) (RR de 0,55, IC de 95% 0,30-1,03, p = 0,06) ou mortalidade (RR: 0,51, IC 95%: 0,17-1,48, p = 0,22). A RCH requereu menos tempo de ventilação (DMP -0,36; IC de 95%: -0,16 -0,55-, p < 0,001), tempo de UTI (DMP: -0,35, IC de 95%: -0,58- -0,13, p < 0,01), estadia hospitalar (DMP: -0,29; IC de 95%: -0.50 - -0,07, p < 0,05) e taxa de transfusão de sangue (RR: Cl 0,57, 95% de 0,49-0,67, p < 0,001), mas necessitou mais tempo de cirurgia (DMP): 1,29, IC de 95% 0,54-2,05, p < 0,001) e custos de hospitalização (DMP: 1,06, 95 %: 0,45-1,66, p < 0,001). O grupa RCH tinha uma taxa mais baixa de ECCAM a médio prazo (RR de 0,49, IC de 95% 0,26-0,92, p < 0,05), mas uma taxa mais elevada a médio prazo em revascularização de vaso alvo (RVA, RR: 2,20, IC 95%: 1,32). 3,67, p < 0,01). Conclusões: A RCH teve mortalidade e morbidade semelhantes no curto prazo comparada ao CRM sem CEC. A RCH diminuiu o tempo de ventilação, a internação na UTI, a internação hospitalar, a taxa de transfusão de sangue e o aumento do tempo de operação e os custos de hospitalização. A RCH tem uma taxa ECCAM mais baixa no médio prazo, enquanto a CRM sem CEC se mostra melhor em RVA a médio prazo.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/cirugía , Puente de Arteria Coronaria Off-Pump/métodos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/métodos , Factores de Tiempo , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Resultado del Tratamiento , Medición de Riesgo , Puente de Arteria Coronaria Off-Pump/efectos adversos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Tiempo de InternaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) is one of the standard treatments for coronary artery disease (CAD) while hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) represents an evolving revascularization strategy. However, the difference in outcomes between them remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We performed a meta-analysis to compare the short-term and mid-term outcomes of HCR versus OPCAB for the treatment of multivessel or left main CAD. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane databases to identify related studies and a routine meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Nine studies with 6121 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in short-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.30-1.03, p = 0.06) or mortality (RR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.17-1.48, p = 0.22). HCR required less ventilator time (SMD: -0.36, 95% CI: -0.55- -0.16, p < 0.001), ICU stay (SMD: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.58 - -0.13, p < 0.01), hospital stay (SMD: -0.29, 95% CI: -0.50- -0.07, p < 0.05) and blood transfusion rate (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.49-0.67, p < 0.001), but needed more operation time (SMD: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.54-2.05, p < 0.001) and hospitalization costs (SMD: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.45-1.66, p < 0.001). The HCR group had lower mid-term MACCE rate (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26-0.92, p < 0.05) but higher rate in mid-term target vessel revascularization (TVR, RR: 2.20, 95% CI: 1.32-3.67, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: HCR had similar short-term mortality and morbidity comparing to OPCAB. HCR decreased the ventilator time, ICU stay, hospital stay, blood transfusion rate and increased operation time and hospitalization costs. HCR has a lower mid-term MACCE rate while OPCAB shows better in mid-term TVR.