From:  The future of coronary artery bypass grafting: innovation, individualization, and integration

 Comparative outcomes of HCR vs. CABG.

Study (year, country)Study designPatient population & follow-upKey findingsSummary insight
Basman et al. [29] (2020, USA)Retrospective, propensity-matched200 patients with triple-vessel CAD; ~7.1 years

  • Mortality: 5% (HCR) vs. 4% (CABG), P = 1.0

  • MI: 4% vs. 3%, P = 1.0

  • Stroke: 0% vs. 0%, P = 1.0

  • TVR: 6% vs. 5%, P = 1.0

  • MACE: 21% vs. 15%, P = 0.36

Notable follow-up duration, though significant disparities in CAD severity between groups impede interpretation
Esteves et al. [30] (2021, Brazil)RCT60 patients with complex triple-vessel CAD; ~2.2 years

  • Mortality: 5.0% vs. 0%, P = NS

  • MI: 12.5% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.4

  • TVR: 14.5% vs. 5.9%, P = NS

  • Stroke: 0% in both groups, P = NS

Small sample with underpowered statistics; outcome disparities noted but not statistically significant
Ganyukov et al. [31] (2020, Russia)RCT98 patients with multivessel CAD; 12 ± 1 months

  • Residual ischaemia: 5% in both groups (P = 0.0006 for non-inferiority)

  • Death: 5.8% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.78

  • MI: 5.8% vs. 8.0%, P = 0.66

  • Stroke: 3.8% vs. 0%, P = 0.21

  • TVR: 13.5% vs. 4.0%, P = 0.095

  • MACCE: 13.4% vs. 12.0%, P = 0.83

Demonstrates comparable ischaemic burden; however, outcomes are observational in nature and the trial was descriptively interpreted
Hage et al. [32] (2019, Canada)Observational cohort363 patients with 2-vessel CAD; follow-up: 96 months (HCR) vs. 81 months (CABG)

  • Mortality: 3.7% vs. 15.1%, P = 0.054

  • Repeat revascularization: 9.3% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.80

  • Angina-free: 89.9% vs. 73.2%, P < 0.001

  • In-hospital MI/stroke: low incidence

Suggests enhanced symptom control with HCR. Differences in urgency and selection may confound survival analysis
Qiu et al. [33] (2019, China)Propensity-matched retrospective study94 matched patients with 2-vessel CAD; ~5-year follow-up

  • Mortality: 2.3% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.134

  • MI: 2.3% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.836

  • Stroke: 4.5% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.697

  • TVR: 4.5% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.365

  • MACCE: 11.4% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.778

Reasonably matched population; however, small sample size hinders generalizability
Tajstra et al. [34] (2018, Poland)RCT191 multivessel CAD patients; ~5.9-year median follow-up

  • Mortality: 6.4% vs. 9.2%, P = 0.69

  • MI: 4.3% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.30

  • Stroke: 2.1% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.35

  • Revascularization: 37.2% vs. 45.4%, P = 0.38

  • MACCE: 45.2% vs. 53.4%, P = 0.39

Strongest RCT evidence to date; trends favor HCR, though results not statistically definitive
Giambruno et al. [35] (2018, Canada)Retrospective cohort690 2-vessel CAD patients; median follow-up ~70 months

  • Survival: 97% (HCR) vs. 92% (CABG), P = 0.13

  • Angina relief: 91% vs. 70%, P < 0.001

  • Revascularization: 91% vs. 93%, P = 0.27

  • In-hospital MI/stroke: comparable rates

Provides meaningful follow-up; absence of full MACCE evaluation limits completeness
Return to article view

CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; CAD: coronary artery disease; HCR: hybrid coronary revascularization; MI: myocardial infarction; TVR: target vessel revascularization; MACE: major adverse cardiac events; MACCE: major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events; NS: not significant; RCT: randomized controlled trial.