Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34917749›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2021

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jef Van den Eynde, Michel Pompeu Sá, Senne De Groote, Andrea Amabile, Serge Sicouri, Basel Ramlawi, Gianluca Torregrossa, Wouter Oosterlinck

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Current trends in hybrid coronary revascularization.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Jef Van den EyndeDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, University Hospitals Leuven & Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Michel Pompeu SáDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Lankenau Heart Institute, Main Line Health Wynnewood, PA, USA.
Senne De GrooteDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, University Hospitals Leuven & Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Andrea AmabileDivision of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Serge SicouriDepartment of Cardiac Surgery Research, Lankenau Institute for Medical Research, Wynnewood, PA, USA.
Basel RamlawiDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Lankenau Heart Institute, Main Line Health Wynnewood, PA, USA.
Gianluca TorregrossaDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Lankenau Heart Institute, Main Line Health Wynnewood, PA, USA.
Wouter OosterlinckDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, University Hospitals Leuven & Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BEMain Line Health · USJohns Hopkins University · USLankenau Heart Institute · USLankenau Institute for Medical Research · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is an emerging approach for multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD) which combines the excellent long-term outcomes of surgery with the early recovery and reduced short-term complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Here, we evaluated the effectiveness of HCR compared to PCI in patients with MVD.

methodsA systematic database search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL/CCTR was conducted by June 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed, comparing major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at 30 days and at latest follow-up between patients undergoing HCR versus PCI.

resultsA total of 27,041 patients (HCR: 939 patients, PCI: 26,102 patients) were included from seven studies published between 2013 and 2021. At latest follow-up, HCR was associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20-0.80, p = 0.010) and target vessel revascularization (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37-0.64, p < 0.001), while the difference for MACCE did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20-1.05, p = 0.061). No differences were observed in terms of 30-day outcomes, nor rates of mortality or stroke at latest follow-up.

conclusionsHCR might be a valid alternative to multivessel PCI, demonstrating a lower incidence of MI and TVR. Center experience, well-coordinated heart team discussions, and good patient selection likely remain essential to ensure optimal outcomes. Future comparative studies are required to define the optimal target population.

Indexed as

CABG, coronary artery bypass graftingCI, confidence intervalClinical outcomesHCR, hybrid coronary revascularizationHybrid coronary revascularizationLAD, left anterior descending coronary arteryLITA, left internal thoracic arteryMACCE, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular eventsMD, mean differenceMeta-analysisMI, myocardial infarctionMVD, multivessel coronary artery diseaseOR, odds ratioPCI, percutaneous coronary interventionPercutaneous coronary InterventionPRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews Meta-AnalysesTVR, target vessel revascularization

Identifiers

PMID34917749
PMCPMC8645443
OpenAlexW3215296181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.