Table 2.
Study characteristics.
| Author | Year | Country of origin | Total number of patients (HCR/PCI) | Study design | Staging strategy for HCR | Interval Surgery-PCI | Follow-up (months) | HCR surgical approach | Use of DES (PCI/HCR) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hannan et al | 2021 | USA | 25,892 (335/25557) | RS | 2-stage | PCI within 60 days before or after surgery | 48.0 | Minimally Invasive CABG surgery in the LAD artery | NR |
| Basman et al | 2020 | USA | 200 (100/100) | RS, PSM | 2-stage | 4–6 weeks | 85.7 ± 1.4 | Robotic MIDCAB* | 100%/100% |
| Ganyukov et al | 2020 | Russia/Poland | 105 (52/53) | RCT | 2-stage | 3 days | 12.0 | Robotic MIDCAB* | 100%/100% |
| Qiu et al | 2019 | China | 94 (47/47) | RS, PSM | NR | NR | 59.0 | NR | 100%/100% |
| Repossini et al | 2018 | Italy | 175 (67/108) | RS, PSM | 2-stage | 1–4 weeks | 15.3 ± 2.7 | MIDCAB: LIMA Harvest through Anterior Left Mini-Thoracotomy; LIMA-LAD Anastomosis | NR |
| Puskas et al | 2016 | USA | 298 (200/98) | PS, PSM | 1-stage 12%, 2-stage 76%; Multi-stage 4%; 8% Surgery-only | NR | 17.6 | Robotic MIDCAB* 54%; TECAB 21%; MIDCAB 19%; Sternotomy 6% | 100%/100% |
| Shen et al | 2013 | China | 282 (141/141) | RS, PSM | 1-stage | NR | 36.0 | Robotic MIDCAB* | 100%/100% |
CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; DES, drug-eluting stent; HCR, hybrid coronary revascularization; LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery; LIMA, left internal mammary artery; MIDCAB, minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass; NR, not reported; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; PS, prospective; PSM, Propensity score matched; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RS, retrospective; TECAB, totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass.
*Robotic MIDCAB: Robotic-assisted LIMA harvest with LIMA-LAD anastomosis through mini-thoracotomy.