Hybrid Coronary Revascularization as a Safe, Feasible, and Viable Alternative to Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: What Is the Current Evidence?

Table 2

Outcomes of 18 series describing hybrid coronary revascularization.

Author	MACCE; (%)	PRBC; (%)	LITA patency; (%)	Hospital LOS; (days)	TVR; (%)	30-day mortality; (%)	Survival; (%)
Zenati et al. [17]	0 (0.0)	2 (6.5)	100.0	2.7 ± 1.0	9.6	0.0	100.0
Lloyd et al. [18]	0 (0.0)	1 (5.6)	100.0	5 ± 1.5	0.0	0.0	100.0
Wittwer et al. [19]	0 (0.0)	1 (2.9)	100.0	7.5 ± 4	NR	0.0	100.0
de Cannière et al. [12]	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	100.0	6.7 ± 0.7	15.0	0.0	100.0
Riess et al. [20]	0 (0.0)	2 (3.5)	97.2	5.7 ± 1.8	15.8	0.0	98.2
Stahl et al. [21]	0 (0.0)	16 (29.6)	100.0	3.54 (2–12)	1.9	0.0	100.0
Cisowski et al. [22]	0 (0.0)	2 (4.0)	98.0	4.4 ± 1.7	12.7	0.0	100.0
Davidavicius et al. [11]	0 (0.0)	5 (25.0)	100.0	8.1 ± 1.6	0.0	0.0	100.0
Katz et al. [13]	1 (3.7)	NR	NR	NR	29.6	0.0	100.0
Us et al. [23]	0 (0.0)	1 (5.9)	NR	5.3 ± 1.4	17.6	0.0	100.0
Gilard et al. [6]	1 (1.4)	12 (17.1)	NR	NR	4.3	1.4	98.6
Kon et al. [7]	0 (0.0)	NR	100.0	3.7 ± 1.4	6.7	0.0	100.0
Kiaii et al. [14]	2 (3.4)	9 (15.5)	93.0	4.3 ± 1.42	5.2	0.0	100.0
Holzhey et al. [24]	3 (2.6)	NR	NR	NR	4.3	1.7	84.8 at 5 years
Zhao et al. [25]	5 (4.5)	NR	NR	6 (1–97) (median)	NR	2.6	NR
Delhaye et al. [26]	1 (5.6)	2 (11.1)	NR	10.0 (10.0–11.2) (median)	5.6	0.0	100.0
Halkos et al. [27]	3 (2.0)	52 (35.4)	NR	6.6 ± 6.7	8.8	0.7	86.8 at 5 years
Hu et al. [28]	0 (0.0)	30 (28.8)	NR	8.2 ± 2.6	1.0	0.0	100.0

Unless otherwise indicated, data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation or number (%). MACCE: major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events; PRBC: packed red blood cells; LITA: left internal thoracic artery; LOS: length of stay; TVR: target vessel revascularization; NR: not reported.