Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional Coronary Artery Bypass surgery in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease in a real-world setting: In-hospital outcomes and medium-term follow-up: COHOS study

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorKaliyamoorthy, Dhamodaranen_US
dc.contributor.authorYusuf, Meeranghani Mohameden_US
dc.contributor.authorRamalingam, Vadiveluen_US
dc.contributor.authorKasha, Abhisheken_US
dc.contributor.authorKathiresan, Manickamen_US
dc.contributor.authorAbdulkader, Rizwan Suliankatchien_US
dc.contributor.authorKathiresan, Jeyashreeen_US
dc.contributor.authorKumar, Aishwarya Maheshen_US
dc.contributor.authorGrace, Elsaen_US
dc.contributor.authorChoudhury, Anirbanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2025-08-13T11:15:22Z
dc.date.available2025-08-13T11:15:22Z
dc.date.issued2025-04
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The aim of this observational study was to evaluate the in-hospital and medium-term outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) in the real-world setting compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: All patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease (MV-CAD) who underwent conventional CABG and HCR in our institution between January 2018 to January 2021 were evaluated in terms of length of intensive care unit (ICU), in-hospital stay, repeat revascularization rates, bleeding, stroke, and in-hospital mortality. Clinical outcomes (mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [MACCE]) were assessed at average follow up of 3.6 years. Results: Pre-procedural characteristics were balanced between the groups after propensity score matching. There was no significant difference in MACCE [Odds ratio: 0.57; 95 % CI: 0.05 to 1.52; p = 0.66], in-hospital mortality [n = 2 (1.9 %) vs n = 0; p = 0.80], post procedure stroke [n = 2 (1.9 %) vs n = 2 (3.7 %); p = 0.86], post- procedural myocardial infarction requiring repeat revascularization [n = 2 (1.9 %) versus n = 1 (1.9 %); p = 1] during the in-hospital stay of the patients in the CABG vs HCR groups respectively. HCR was associated with significantly lower requirement for blood transfusions, bleeding risk, in-hospital stay, and intensive care unit stay. Analysis of the outcomes after 3.6 years revealed no significant difference in MACCE [Odds ratio: 1.40; 95 % CI: 0.46 to 4.30; p = 0.55], and post discharge mortality [n = 0 vs n = 0; p = 1]. Both groups had similar rates of post-procedural myocardial infarction requiring repeat revascularization [n = 0 vs n = 4 (7.4 %); p = 0.278], and rate of re-intervention [n = 0 vs n = 3 (5.6 %); p = 0.41]. Conclusion: HCR may be considered as a safe and feasible alternative to conventional CABG in selected in- dividuals with MV-CAD.en_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsApollo Hospitals, Greams Road, Chennai - 600006, Indiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsApollo Hospitals, Greams Road, Chennai - 600006, Indiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsDepartment of Cardiology, Velammal Medical College Hospital, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, 625009, Indiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsApollo Hospitals, Greams Road, Chennai - 600006, Indiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsApollo Hospitals, Greams Road, Chennai - 600006, Indiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsNational Institute of Epidemiology, Indian Council of Medical Research, Second Main Road, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ayapakkam, Chennai - 600077, Indiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsNational Institute of Epidemiology, Indian Council of Medical Research, Second Main Road, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Ayapakkam, Chennai - 600077, Indiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsApollo Hospitals, Greams Road, Chennai - 600006, Indiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsApollo Hospitals, Greams Road, Chennai - 600006, Indiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationsMorriston Cardiac Centre, Swansea, United Kingdomen_US
dc.identifier.citationKaliyamoorthy Dhamodaran, Yusuf Meeranghani Mohamed, Ramalingam Vadivelu, Kasha Abhishek, Kathiresan Manickam, Abdulkader Rizwan Suliankatchi, Kathiresan Jeyashree, Kumar Aishwarya Mahesh, Grace Elsa, Choudhury Anirban. Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional Coronary Artery Bypass surgery in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease in a real-world setting: In-hospital outcomes and medium-term follow-up: COHOS study. Indian Heart Journal. 2025 Apr; 77(2): 98-104en_US
dc.identifier.issn0019-4832
dc.identifier.placeIndiaen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://imsear.searo.who.int/handle/123456789/253352
dc.languageenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.issuenumber2en_US
dc.relation.volume77en_US
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihj.2025.03.002en_US
dc.subjectHybrid coronary revascularizationen_US
dc.subjectCoronary Artery Bypass graften_US
dc.subjectPercutaneous coronary interventionen_US
dc.subjectRobotic surgical proceduresen_US
dc.titleComparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus conventional Coronary Artery Bypass surgery in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease in a real-world setting: In-hospital outcomes and medium-term follow-up: COHOS studyen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
ihj2025v77n2p98.pdf
Size:
1.23 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
Collections
Indian Heart Journal