Effect of one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization on postoperative renal function and bleeding: A comparison study with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery

Zhou, Shan; Fang, Zhongrong; Xiong, Hui; Hu, Shengshou; Xu, Bo; Chen, Lei; Wang, Weipeng

doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.05.026

Cited by 32 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…7,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] In Table 4, we have summarized the key findings from these studies. The number of patients who underwent HCR in these studies ranged from 5 to 300 patients, and most operators used a partial sternotomy or a small lateral thoracotomy approach with or without the use of robotic assistance.…”

Section: Clinical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practice Patterns and Clinical Outcomes After Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in the United States

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Clinical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practice Patterns and Clinical Outcomes After Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in the United States

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…20 The reported stroke rates were 0% to 1.7%. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] It is notable that despite the anaortic approach used for the HCR CABG arm (mostly in situ LIMA conduit), the stroke rates are not much lower.There are two meta-analyses that evaluate the studies done on HCR and conventional CABG patients (Table 2). 27,28 Phan and Harskamp both showed that there is no benefit for perioperative mortality, stroke, or 1-year freedom from major adverse events when using HCR over CABG.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally Invasive Multivessel Coronary Surgery and Hybrid Coronary Revascularization: Can We Routinely Achieve Less Invasive Coronary Surgery?

Rodriguez

Ruel

2016

Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Editor's Note: We are pleased to offer 1 credit of Continuing Medical Education for successfully completing an online quiz about this article. You may access the quiz at www.houstonmethodist.org/cme-online. AbstractCoronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the gold standard in managing severe coronary artery disease. However, it is associated with prolonged recovery and potential complications, in part due to the invasiveness of the procedure. Less invasive CABG techniques attempt to improve the quality and quantity of life in the same way as surgical revascularization but with fewer complications.Minimally invasive coronary surgery (MICS) through a small thoracotomy allows for complete revascularization with good results in graft patency. Perioperative mortality is low, and there is decreased need for blood transfusion, lower surgical site infection rates, and an earlier return to full physical function. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) attempts to combine the advantages of coronary artery bypass grafting with those of percutaneous coronary intervention. Several studies have shown that HCR provides better short-term outcomes with regard to decreased ventilation and ICU time, reduced need for blood transfusion, and shortened hospital stay. However, the rates for major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality are comparable to conventional CABG, except for patients with a high SYNTAX score who displayed increased mortality rates. There is also strong evidence of a higher need for repeat revascularization with HCR compared to CABG.Overall, MICS and HCR appear to be viable alternatives to conventional CABG, offering a less invasive approach to coronary revascularization, which may be especially beneficial to high-risk patients. This article discusses approaches that deliver the advantages of minimally invasive surgical revascularization that can be adapted by surgeons with minimal investment with regards to training and infrastructure.MDCVJ | XII (1) 2016 15 houstonmethodist.org/debakey-journal With MICS-CABG, complete myocardial revascularization is achievable in more than 95% of cases 1 since the technique allows access to the anterior, lateral, and inferior walls of the heart with or without use of CPB. Perioperative mortality is low at 1.3%. 1Other advantages include a decreased need for blood transfusion, lower surgical site infection rates, and earlier return to full physical function.1,3,4 Associated complications include sternotomy conversion and development of left-sided pleural effusion. 1,3,5 Postoperative pain can be an issue during the initial hours, but it is transient, controllable, and significantly reduced by the third postoperative day; it is also associated with an overall improved postoperative pain picture with improved pulmonary functions. 6,7 Notably, unlike sternotomy patients, MICS-CABG patients have no physical restriction postoperatively, which leads to improved independence. Even though MICS-CABG is more technically demanding, its anastomotic patency results were validated to...

show abstract

“…The cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic clamp time, blood loss (i.e., chest tube drainage and blood transfusions), intubation time, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and total length of stay in the hospital are less with hybrid coronary revascularization compared to standard CABG. Further, clamping of the aorta that may be associated with stroke, especially in the elderly, is avoided with the hybrid approach, as the left internal mammary artery is the only graft utilized [4,6,[12][13][14][15][16]. Hybrid coronary revascularization can also be performed at the same time in the hybrid operating room (see later).…”

Section: Hybrid Coronary Revascularizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization and the Hybrid Cardiovascular Operating Room

Boudoulas

Marmagkiolis

Pitsis³

et al. 2018

Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of one-stop hybrid coronary revascularization on postoperative renal function and bleeding: A comparison study with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery

Abstract: Compared with off-pump CABG, 1-stop hybrid coronary revascularization was associated with benefits such as less postoperative bleeding and blood transfusion requirements without significantly increasing the additional risk of acute kidney injury.

Cited by 32 publications

References 32 publications

Practice Patterns and Clinical Outcomes After Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in the United States

Practice Patterns and Clinical Outcomes After Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in the United States

Minimally Invasive Multivessel Coronary Surgery and Hybrid Coronary Revascularization: Can We Routinely Achieve Less Invasive Coronary Surgery?

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization and the Hybrid Cardiovascular Operating Room

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About