Percutaneous coronary intervention followed by minimally invasive valve surgery compared with median sternotomy coronary artery bypass graft and valve surgery in patients with prior cardiac surgery

Background: In patients with prior cardiac surgery requiring re-operative coronary and valve surgery, a hybrid approach of percutaneous coronary intervention followed by minimally invasive valve surgery (PCI + MIVS) may be an alternative to the standard median sternotomy coronary artery bypass and valve surgery (CABG + valve). Methods: The outcomes of patients with prior cardiac surgery, presenting with coronary artery and valvular disease, who underwent PCI + MIVS (N=39) were retrospectively compared with those who underwent CABG + valve (N=28) via a repeat median sternotomy, between February 2009 and April 2014. Results: The mean age for the PCI + MIVS versus CABG + valve group was 75 +/- 9 and 72 +/- 11 years (P=0.54), respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between groups, with the exception of a greater prevalence of 1-vessel coronary artery disease and clopidogrel or dual antiplatelet therapy at the time of surgery in the PCI + MIVS group, and more 3-vessel coronary artery disease in those undergoing CABG + valve surgery. The PCI + MIVS approach was associated with a decreased aortic cross-clamp (94 vs. 131 minutes, P=0.001) and cardiopulmonary bypass (128 vs. 190 minutes, P < 0.001) times, fewer intraoperative packed red blood transfusions (1.3 vs. 3.8 units, P=0.001), shorter intensive care unit length of stay (41 vs. 71 hours, P < 0.001), and decreased incidence of prolonged mechanical ventilation (12.8% vs. 35.7%, P=0.03), re-intubation (2.6% vs. 17.9%, P=0.04), when compared with CABG + valve. The thirty-day and two-year mortality were similar, being 7.7% vs. 7.1% (P=0.66), and 12.8% vs. 10.7% (P=0.55), in the PCI + MIVS vs. CABG + valve group, respectively. Conclusions: Hybrid PCI + MIVS in patients with prior cardiac surgery is associated with shorter operative times and intensive care unit length of stay, less need for intraoperative blood cell transfusions, decreased use of mechanical ventilation, and similar short-term and follow-up survival, when compared with CABG + valve surgery via median sternotomy. Randomized trials and multicenter registries are needed to further evaluate this approach.