A robotic-assisted hybrid coronary revascularization program: Establishment and early experience in the Middle East.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) is a technique that merges coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) approaches for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. The surgical component of the procedure is minimally invasive and can be done using robotic technology that avoids the need for sternotomy. Our objective is to study all patients who underwent robotic-assisted HCR (RHCR) to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the procedure during the establishment phase. METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review conducted at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre in Jeddah (KFSRC-J). The study focuses on patients who underwent RHCR between July 2018 to December 2020. The study was approved by the institutional review board #2020-103. RESULTS: Robotic-assisted HCR was performed on 78 patients (mean age, 56 years (range, 43-72 years); 89.75% males) during the study phase. Left internal mammary artery grafting was used in all patients. There was no hospital mortality, and the mean hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay were 5.8 and 1.4 days, respectively. We found that 93.6% of the patients had no blood transfusion. There were no major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and perioperative MI recorded. There was a 3.8% rate of postoperative complications. The percentage of surgeries converted to conventional and re-exploration for bleeding were 1.2% and 2.6%, respectively. The average operation time was 164 min. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes on the safety and effectiveness of RHCR in treating patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Moreover, robotic-assisted hybrid coronary revascularization offers an alternative, functionally complete revascularization option to a selected group of patients with minimal surgical trauma, short hospital and ICU length of stay, quick recovery, and little to no blood transfusion requirement.

Temporal changes in the management and outcome of Canadian diabetic patients hospitalized for non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the contemporary management and outcomes of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients with diabetes in the "real world." We sought to evaluate (1) the temporal changes in the medical and invasive management and (2) in-hospital outcome of NSTE-ACS patients with and without diabetes. METHODS: We included Canadian patients hospitalized for NSTE-ACS enrolled in 4 consecutive, prospective, multicenter registries: Canadian ACS-I (n = 3259; 1999-2001), ACS-II (n = 1,956; 2002-2003), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE/GRACE2 [n = 7,561; 2004-2007]) and Canadian Registry of Acute Coronary Events (n = 1,326; 2008). Participants were stratified by the presence or absence of preexisting diabetes on admission. Temporal changes in patient management and outcomes were evaluated across the 4 registries. Multivariable analyses were performed to determine the independent prognostic significance of diabetes. RESULTS: Of the 14,102 NSTE-ACS patients, 4,046 (28.7%) had previously diagnosed diabetes. Patients with diabetes were older; were more likely to have prior cardiac history including myocardial infarction, revascularization, and heart failure; and had worse Killip class and higher GRACE risk score (all P < .001). Over time, there were significant increases in the use of in-hospital coronary angiography and revascularization. However, diabetic patients were less likely to undergo coronary angiography (52.5% vs 57%, P < .001) or revascularization (28.4% vs 33.4%, P < .001). The underuse of invasive procedures in diabetic patients was seen in all registries and was persistent over time. Overall, compared with the group without diabetes, diabetic patients had higher unadjusted rates of in-hospital mortality (3.0% vs 1.6%, P < .001). In multivariable analysis adjusting for components of the GRACE risk score, diabetes remained an independent predictor of in-hospital death (adjusted odds ratio 1.66, 95% CI 1.30-2.11, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Over the last decade, NSTE-ACS patients with diabetes continue to be treated more conservatively, despite evidence that they would derive similar or even greater benefits from aggressive treatment. This underutilization of evidence-based therapies among diabetic patients with NSTE-ACS in the "real world" may partly explain their worse outcome.