Background: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) are both feasible, less invasive techniques for coronary revascularization. Although both techniques utilize the left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft, HCR uses drug-eluting stents instead of saphenous vein bypass. It remains unclear whether HCR is equal to, better or worse than OPCABG.
Methods and results: A meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model. Seven observational studies were included. There was no significant difference either in in-hospital mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-2.59, P=0.47] or in the MACCE rate (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.24-1.64, P=0.34) between the HCR group and the OPCABG group. A significant difference was observed between the two groups in the length of hospitalization (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.13-0.97, P=0.01), length of ICU stay (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.10-0.80, P<0.05), intubation time (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.13-0.84, P<0.01), need for red blood transfusion (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.56-0.82, P<0.001), and total in-hospital costs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.39-1.42, P<0.01).
Conclusion: Compared with OPCABG, HCR did not improve early survival but decreased the length of hospitalization, length of ICU stay, intubation time, and need for red blood transfusion, and increased total in-hospitalcosts.