Late clinical outcomes of myocardial hybrid revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting for complex triple‐vessel disease: Long‐term follow‐up of the randomized MERGING clinical trial

Abstract Objectives This article aimed to compare the outcomes after hybrid revascularization with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. Background The concept of hybrid coronary revascularization combines the advantages of CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention to improve the treatment of patients with complex multivessel disease. Methods The M yocardial hybrid revascularization versus coronary art ER y bypass G raft ING for complex triple‐vessel disease—MERGING study is a pilot randomized trial that allocated 60 patients with complex triple‐vessel disease to treatment with hybrid revascularization or conventional CABG (2:1 ratio). The primary outcome was the composite of all‐cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned repeat revascularization at 2 years. Results Clinical and anatomical characteristics were similar between groups. After a mean follow‐up of 802 ± 500 days, the primary endpoint rate was 19.3% in the hybrid arm and 5.9% in the CABG arm ( p = NS). The incidence of unplanned revascularization increased over time in both groups, reaching 14.5 versus 5.9% in the hybrid and in the CABG groups, respectively ( p = .4). Of note, in the hybrid group, there were no reinterventions driven by the occurrence of stent restenosis. Conclusions Hybrid myocardial was feasible but associated with increasing rates of major adverse cardiovascular events during 2 years of clinical follow‐up, while the control group treated with conventional surgery presented with low rates of complications during the same period. In conclusion, before more definitive data arise, hybrid revascularization should be applied with careful attention in practice, following a selective case‐by‐case indication.