Current trends of hybrid myocardial revascularization
Ya. A. Dyachenko,
A. V. Gurshchenkov,
G. I. Ishmukhametov,
D. G. Zavarzina,
V. S. Kucherenko,
M. L. Gordeev https://doi.org/10.24884/0042-4625-2022-181-3-108-114
Abstract
Despite the improvement of endovascular technologies, the method of choice for multi-vascular lesions of the coronary arteries today remains coronary bypass surgery. However, in a range of patients, it is possible to perform hybrid revascularization – a technique with minimal injury that preserves good long-term results similar to those of coronary bypass surgery. The review analyzes current data from the world literature and current trends in the choice of the revascularization method.
About the Authors
Ya. A. Dyachenko
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Dyachenko Yakov A., Cardiac Surgeon, Postgraduate Student in Cardiovascular Surgery
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
A. V. Gurshchenkov
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Gurshchenkov Alexander V., Cand. of Sci. (Med.), Assistant of the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
G. I. Ishmukhametov
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Ishmukhametov Gleb I., Resident of the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery
2, Akkuratov str., Saint Petersburg, 197341
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
D. G. Zavarzina
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Zavarzina Daria G., Resident of the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
V. S. Kucherenko
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Kucherenko Vladimir S., Dr. of Sci. (Med.), Professor of the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
M. L. Gordeev
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Gordeev Mikhail L., Dr. of Sci. (Med.), Professor of the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery
Saint Petersburg
Competing Interests:
The authors declare no conflict of interest
References
1. Stamler J., Vaccaro O., Neaton J. D., Wentworth D. Diabetes, other risk factors, and 12-yr cardiovascular mortality for men screened in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial // Diabetes Care.1993. Vol. 16, № 2. P. 434–444. Doi:10.2337/diacare.16.2.434.
2.
3. ElBardissi A. W., Aranki S. F., Sheng S., O'Brien S. M., Greenberg C. C., Gammie J. S. Trends in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery data base // J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143(2):273–281. Doi:10.1016/j. jtcvs.2011.10.029.
4.
5. Kolesov V. I. Surgery of the coronary arteries of the heart. L. : Medicine, 1977;359. (In Russ.).
6.
7. Gruntzig A. Transluminal dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis // Lancet. 1978. Vol. 1, № 8058). P. 263. Doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(78)90500-7.
8.
9. Angelini G. D., Wilde P., Salerno T. A., Bosco G., Calafiore A. M. Integrated left small thoracotomy and angioplasty for multivessel coronary artery revascularization // Lancet. 1996. Vol. 347, № 9003. P. 757–758. Doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)90107-5.
10.
11. Harskamp R. E. Current state and future direction of hybrid coronary revascularization // Curr Opin Cardiol. 2015. Vol. 30, № 6. P. 643–649. Doi:10.1097/HCO.0000000000000223.
12.
13. Fihn S. D., Blankenship J. C., Alexander K. P. et al. 2014 ACC/AHA/ AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS focused update of the guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons // Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2014. Vol. 64, № 18. P. 1929–1949. Doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.07.017.
14.
15. Neumann F. J., Sousa-Uva M., Ahlsson A. et al. ESC Scientific Document Group (2019). 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization // European heart journal. 2019. Vol. 40, № 2. P. 87–165. Doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394.
16.
17. Mohr F. W., Morice M. C., Kappetein A. P. et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial // Lancet. 2013. Vol. 381, № 9867. P. 629–638. Doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60141-5.
18.
19. Kandzari D. E., Mauri L., Popma J. J. et al. Late-term clinical outcomes with zotarolimus- and sirolimus-eluting stents. 5-year follow-up of the ENDEAVOR III (A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Cypher Sirolimus-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions). JACC // Cardiovascular interventions. 2011. Vol. 4, № 5. P. 543–550. Doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2010.12.014.
20.
21. Stone G. W., Sabik J. F., Serruys P. W., & Kappetein A. P. (2017). Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Disease // The New England journal of medicine. 2017. Vol. 376, № 11. P. 1089. Doi:10.1056/NEJMc1701177.
22.
23. Mäkikallio T., Holm N. R., Lindsay M. et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial // Lancet. 2016. Vol. 388, № 10061. P. 2743–2752. Doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32052-9.
24.
25. Fearon W. F. et al. Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI as Compared with Coronary Bypass Surgery // N Engl J Med. 2022;386(2):128-137. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2112299.
26.
27. Loop F. D., Lytle B. W., Cosgrove D. M. et al. Influence of the internalmammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events // The New England journal of medicine.1986. Vol. 314, № 1. P. 1–6. Doi:10.1056/NEJM198601023140101.
28.
29. Lopes R. D., Hafley G. E., Allen K. B. et al. Endoscopic versus open veingraft harvesting in coronary-artery bypass surgery // The New England journal of medicine. 2009. Vol. 361, № 3. P. 235–244. Doi:10.1056/ NEJMoa0900708.
30.
31. Yun K. L., Wu Y., Aharonian V. et al. Randomized trial of endoscopic versus open vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: six-month patency rates. The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2015. Vol. 129, № 3. P. 496–503. Doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.08.054.
32.
33. Alexander J. H., Hafley G., Harrington R. A. et al. Efficacy and safety of edifoligide, an E2F transcription factor decoy, for prevention of vein graft failure following coronary artery bypass graft surgery: PREVENT IV: a randomized controlled trial // JAMA. 2015. Vol. 294, № 19. P. 2446–2454. Doi:10.1001/jama.294.19.2446.
34.
35. Panoulas V. F., Colombo A., Margonato A., Maisano F. Hybrid coronary revascularization: promising, but yet to take off // Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015. Vol. 65, № 1. P. 85–97. Doi:10.1016/j. jacc.2014.04.093.
36.
37. Seco M., Edelman J. J., Yan T. D., Wilson M. K., Bannon P. G., Vallely M. P. Systematic review of robotic-assisted,totally endoscopic coro nary artery bypass grafting // Annals of cardiothoracic surgery. 2013. Vol. 2, № 4. P. 408–418. Doi:10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2013.07.23.
38.
39. Murkin J. M., Ganapathy S. Anesthesia for robotic heart surgery: an overview. // The heart surgery forum. 2001. Vol. 4, № 4. P. 311–314.
40.
41. Lee J. D., Srivastava M., Bonatti J. History and current status of robotic totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass // Circulation journal: official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society. 2012. Vol. 76, № 9. P. 2058–2065. Doi:10.1253/circj.cj-12-0981.
42.
43. Deshpande S. P., Lehr E., Odonkor P. et al. Anesthetic management of robotically assisted totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass surgery (TECAB). Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. 2013. Vol. 27, № 3. P. 586–599. Doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2013.01.005.
44.
45. Bonatti J., Schachner T., Bonaros et al. Technical challenges in totally endoscopic robotic coronary artery bypass grafting // The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2006. Vol. 131, № 1. P. 146–153. Doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.07.064.
46.
47. Ejiofor J. I., Leacche M., Byrne J. G. Robotic CABG and Hybrid Approaches: The Current Landscape //Progress in cardiovascular diseases. 2015. Vol. 58, № 3. P. 356–364. Doi:10.1016/j.pcad.2015.08.012.
48.
49. Bernstein W. K., Walker A. Anesthetic issues for robotic cardiac surgery // Annals of cardiac anaesthesia. 2015. Vol. 18, № 1. P. 58–68. Doi:10.4103/0971-9784.148323.
50.
51. Leyvi G., Dabas A., Leff J. D. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization – Current State of the Art // Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. 2019. Vol. 33, № 12. P. 3437–3445. Doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2019.08.047.
52.
53. Zhou S., Fang Z., Xiong H., et al. Effect of one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization on postoperative renal function and bleeding: a comparison study with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery // The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2014. Vol. 147, № 5. P. 1511–1516.e1. Doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.05.026.
54.
55. Song Z., Shen L., Zheng Z., Xu B., Xiong H., Li L., Hu S. One-stop hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass in patients with diabetes mellitus // The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. 2016. Vol. 151, № 6. P. 1695–1701. E1. Doi:10.1016/j. jtcvs.2016.01.049.
56.
57. Dong L., Kang Y. K., An X. G. Short-Term and Mid-Term Clinical Outcomes Following Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Versus Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass: A Meta-Analysis // Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia. 2018. Vol. 110, № 4. P. 321–330. Doi:10.5935/abc.20180044.
58.
59. Lison S., Weiss G., Spannagl M., Heindl B. Postoperative changes in procoagulant factors after major surgery // Blood coagulation & fibrinolysis : an international journal in haemostasis and thrombosis. 2011. Vol. 22, № 3. P. 190–196. Doi:10.1097/MBC.0b013e328343f7be.
60.
61. Leyvi G., Dabas A., Leff J. D. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization – Current State of the Art // Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. 2019. Vol. 33, № 12. P. 3437–3445. Doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2019.08.047.
62.
63. Qiu J., Zhu P., Liu Z., Xu H., Liu J., Zhao Q. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of two-vessel coronary artery disease with proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis // Journal ofthoracic disease. 2019. Vol. 11, № 6. P. 2402–2409. Doi:10.21037/ jtd.2019.05.54.
64.
65. Tajstra M., Hrapkowicz T., Hawranek et al. Study Investigators. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in Selected Patients With Multivessel Disease: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes of the Prospective Randomized Pilot Study. JACC // Cardiovascular interventions. 2018. Vol. 11, № 9. P. 847–852. Doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2018.01.271.
66.
67. Giambruno V., Hafiz A., Fox S. A. et al. Is the Future of Coronary Arterial Revascularization a Hybrid Approach? // The Canadian Experience Across Three Centers. Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.). 2017. Vol. 12, № 2. Р. 82–86. Doi:10.1097/IMI.0000000000000355.
68.
69. Ganyukov V., Kochergin N., Shilov A. et al. Randomized Clinical Trial of Surgical vs. Percutaneous vs. Hybrid Revascularization in Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Residual Myocardial Ischemia and Clinical Outcomes at One Year-Hybrid coronary REvascularization Versus Stenting or Surgery (HREVS) // Journal of interventional cardiology. 2020. Vol. 5458064. Doi:10.1155/2020/5458064.
70.
71. Esteves V., Oliveira M., Feitosa F. S. et al. Late clinical outcomes of myocardial hybrid revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting for complex triple-vessel disease: Long-term follow-up of the randomized MERGING clinical trial // Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions: official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 2021. Vol. 97, № 2. P. 259–264. Doi:10.1002/ccd.28710.
72.
73. Guan Z., Zhang Z., Gu K. et al. Minimally Invasive CABG or Hybrid Coronary Revascularization for Multivessel Coronary Diseases: Which Is Best? A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis // The heart surgery forum. 2019. Vol. 22, № 6. E493–E502. Doi:10.1532/hsf.2499.
74.
75. Perera D., Clayton T., O'Kane P. D. et al. REVIVED-BCIS2 Investigators. Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction // N Engl J Med. 2022 Oct. 13; 387(15). P. 1351-1360. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2206606. Epub 2022 Aug 27. PMID: 36027563.
Supplementary files
|
1. Неозаглавлен | |
| Subject | ||
| Type | Исследовательские инструменты | |
Download
(489KB)
|
Indexing metadata ▾ | |
Review
For citations:
Dyachenko Ya.A., Gurshchenkov A.V., Ishmukhametov G.I., Zavarzina D.G., Kucherenko V.S., Gordeev M.L. Current trends of hybrid myocardial revascularization. Grekov's Bulletin of Surgery. 2022;181(3):108-114. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24884/0042-4625-2022-181-3-108-114
Views:
467
Email this article 