Hybrid Coronary Revascularization Trial

The purpose of the study is to learn which treatment option is better for patients who have multi-vessel coronary artery disease (blockages in more than one vessel supplying blood to the heart muscle). The treatment options this study will compare are: (1) Hybrid Coronary Revascularization \[HCR\] (a combination of surgery and catheter procedures to open up clogged heart arteries) and (2) Percutaneous Coronary Intervention \[PCI\] (catheter procedures alone to open up clogged heart arteries). There are no new or "experimental" procedures being tested in this study: both HCR and PCI are well-established procedures and are regularly performed in patients who have coronary artery disease. But, the FDA has not approved the drug-eluting stents used in PCI for all types of coronary artery disease. We have received an Investigational Device Exemption from the FDA to use the drug-eluting stents in this trial in the same way that they are used in clinical practice. The study being proposed here will use rigorous scientific methods and should result in a very high level of certainty about which procedure is best for patients with coronary artery disease.

The increasing prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD), advances in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and concomitant medical therapy, and the costs of revascularization have resulted in rising interest regarding the appropriate indications and alternatives for coronary revascularization. Hybrid coronary revascularization is the intended combination of CABG and PCI. The HCR strategy combines grafting of the left anterior descending artery (LAD) coronary artery using the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) and PCI of non-LAD coronary stenoses. Essentially, stents are substituted for saphenous vein grafts (SVG) for non-LAD lesions, and the surgical LIMA to LAD bypass is performed, ideally through a limited access, minimally traumatic approach. Unfortunately, the published data to date on HCR must be considered limited and hypothesis generating. Clinicians, payers, and patients are interested in the specific benefits of revascularization alternatives. HCR as a scientifically validated approach would have a major healthcare impact. The ability to deliver a new therapy for CAD that provides durability, but without the obligatory trauma and prolonged recovery time characteristic of conventional CABG would be a major advance in the field of cardiovascular medicine. The NHLBI-funded Hybrid Observational Study demonstrated that equipoise exists between the two coronary revascularization paradigms; however, a rigorously designed randomized clinical trial is now needed to provide sufficient evidence to guide clinical decision making for this important patient population. This trial is a prospective, multi-center randomized comparative effectiveness trial of HCR compared to multi-vessel PCI in patients with multi-vessel CAD involving the LAD or left main (LM) territories. The trial is designed as a "large, simple" trial, and some baseline, procedure-related and short-term outcomes data collection will be extracted from existing registry data (Society of Thoracic Surgeons \[STS\] Data Registry). The overall objective of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Hybrid Coronary Revascularization (HCR) compared to multi-vessel PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease involving the Left Main and/or Left Anterior Descending arteries. The primary objective the trial is to determine whether hybrid coronary revascularization is associated with a reduction in Major Adverse Cardiac and Cerebrovascular Events (MACCE) compared to PCI with DES. The secondary objectives are to determine the impact of HCR compared to PCI on health status and quality of life.