Hybrid coronary revascularization versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in high-risk patients: a single-centre retrospective study of early outcomes.

内容摘要

It is hard to efficiently revascularize high-risk patients with multivessel coronary disease, especially when conventional coronary artery bypass grafting is correlated with high perioperative risk and doing it percutaneously can be bigger issue for high-risk patients. Less invasive and modern alternative to OPCAB is Hybrid coronary revascularization. So we decided to compare this two methods and see which one will have better outcomes for high-risk patients. Our research involves comparing early (30 days) postoperative outcomes between Hybrid Coronary Revascularization (HCR) and Off-Pump Coronary Bypass surgery (OPCAB) in high surgical risk patients with coronary artery disease (EUROSCORE II&#x2009;>&#x2009;6%, STS&#x2009;>&#x2009;4% and SYNTAX SCORE&#x2009;>&#x2009;32). In this single-centre retrospective study, we reviewed high-risk patients treated between Feb 18, 2024 and Dec 14, 2025. After applying predefined eligibility criteria, 87 patients were included, from 28 patients (Mean Age&#x2009;=&#x2009;66.6&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;10.7) underwent HCR and 59 (Mean Age&#x2009;=&#x2009;76.6&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;4.1) underwent off-pump open aorto-coronary bypass surgery via median sternotomy. We compared early (30 days) postoperative clinical outcomes between two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS statistics, applying independent-samples t-test and chi-square test as appropriate. Hybrid Coronary Revascularisation (MIDCAB&#x2009;+&#x2009;PCI) required shorter operative time than Off-Pump Coronary Bypass surgery (OPCAB), but with higher in-hospital costs. HCR was also associated with shorter intubation duration (245.5&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;51.2&#xa0;min vs. 576.7&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;97.3&#xa0;min, P&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001), ICU stay (66.4&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;15.5&#xa0;h vs. 102.7&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;12.7&#xa0;h, P&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001), hospital length of stay (7.3&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;0.8 days vs. 13.0&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;3.7 days, P&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001), and lower thoracic drainage output (275.4&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;74.1&#xa0;ml vs. 615.3&#x2009;&#xb1;&#x2009;88.5&#xa0;ml, P&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). Blood transfusion requirements were higher in the HCR group (14.3% vs. 0.0%, P&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.009). Wound infection occurred only in the OPCAB group (0.0% vs. 27.1%, P&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.002). The composite 30-day MACCE rate was numerically lower in the HCR group (0.0% vs. 13.6%), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P&#x2009;=&#x2009;0.050). In high-risk patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, Hybrid Coronary Revascularization (MIDCAB&#x2009;+&#x2009;PCI), compared with traditional Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass surgery (OPCAB), was associated with a faster early-recovery profile, including shorter intubation time, ICU stay, and hospitalization, and lower chest-drain output. Multivariable analysis confirmed that these recovery benefits were independent of age, whereas the apparent advantage in overall complications was largely explained by the younger age of the HCR group. Differences in 30-day mortality and MACCE favoured HCR numerically but did not reach statistical significance in this underpowered cohort.Given the retrospective, non-randomized design with unequal group sizes and the absence of time-to-event follow-up, superiority of one strategy over the other cannot be established. Within these limitations, HCR appears to be a safe and feasible option that may be considered in selected elderly and high-risk patients (EUROSCORE II&#x2009;>&#x2009;6%, STS&#x2009;>&#x2009;4%, and SYNTAX SCORE&#x2009;>&#x2009;32) with complex coronary anatomy. Larger, prospective, risk-adjusted studies with longer follow-up are warranted to confirm these findings. EC/NVU/PhD/26-001.