Mark A Hlatky1, Derek B Boothroyd2, Bruce A Reitz2, David A Shilane2, Laurence C Baker3, Alan S Go4. 1. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. Electronic address: hlatky@stanford.edu. 2. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 3. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 4. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the pattern of the adoption of internal mammary artery (IMA) grafting in the United States, test its association with clinical outcomes, and assess whether its effectiveness differs in key clinical subgroups. BACKGROUND: The effect of IMA grafting on major clinical outcomes has never been tested in a large randomized trial, yet it is now a quality standard for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries ≥66 years of age who underwent isolated multivessel CABG between 1988 and 2008, and we documented patterns of IMA use over time. We used a multivariable propensity score to match patients with and without an IMA and compared rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization. We tested for variations in IMA effectiveness with treatment × covariate interaction tests. RESULTS: The IMA use in CABG rose slowly from 31% in 1988 to 91% in 2008, with persistent wide geographic variations. Among 60,896 propensity score-matched patients over a median 6.8-year follow-up, IMA use was associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.77, p < 0.001), lower death or MI (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.77, p < 0.001), and fewer repeat revascularizations over 5 years (8% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). The association between IMA use and lower mortality was significantly weaker (p ≤ 0.008) for older patients, women, and patients with diabetes or peripheral arterial disease. CONCLUSIONS: Internal mammary artery grafting was adopted slowly and still shows substantial geographic variation. IMA use is associated with lower rates of death, MI, and repeat coronary revascularization.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the pattern of the adoption of internal mammary artery (IMA) grafting in the United States, test its association with clinical outcomes, and assess whether its effectiveness differs in key clinical subgroups. BACKGROUND: The effect of IMA grafting on major clinical outcomes has never been tested in a large randomized trial, yet it is now a quality standard for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries ≥66 years of age who underwent isolated multivessel CABG between 1988 and 2008, and we documented patterns of IMA use over time. We used a multivariable propensity score to match patients with and without an IMA and compared rates of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization. We tested for variations in IMA effectiveness with treatment × covariate interaction tests. RESULTS: The IMA use in CABG rose slowly from 31% in 1988 to 91% in 2008, with persistent wide geographic variations. Among 60,896 propensity score-matched patients over a median 6.8-year follow-up, IMA use was associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.77, p < 0.001), lower death or MI (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.77, p < 0.001), and fewer repeat revascularizations over 5 years (8% vs. 9%, p < 0.001). The association between IMA use and lower mortality was significantly weaker (p ≤ 0.008) for older patients, women, and patients with diabetes or peripheral arterial disease. CONCLUSIONS: Internal mammary artery grafting was adopted slowly and still shows substantial geographic variation. IMA use is associated with lower rates of death, MI, and repeat coronary revascularization.
Authors: Shishir Karthik; Arun K Srinivasan; Antony D Grayson; Mark Jackson; Neeraj K Mediratta Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Friedrich W Mohr; Marie-Claude Morice; A Pieter Kappetein; Ted E Feldman; Elisabeth Ståhle; Antonio Colombo; Michael J Mack; David R Holmes; Marie-angèle Morel; Nic Van Dyck; Vicki M Houle; Keith D Dawkins; Patrick W Serruys Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-02-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: B J Leavitt; G T O'Connor; E M Olmstead; J R Morton; C T Maloney; L J Dacey; F Hernandez; S J Lahey Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-01-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: F D Loop; B W Lytle; D M Cosgrove; R W Stewart; M Goormastic; G W Williams; L A Golding; C C Gill; P C Taylor; W C Sheldon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1986-01-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mohan N Babapulle; Lawrence Joseph; Patrick Bélisle; James M Brophy; Mark J Eisenberg Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Aug 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: R H Zeff; C Kongtahworn; L A Iannone; D F Gordon; T M Brown; S J Phillips; J R Skinner; M Spector Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 1988-05 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Frans J Beerkens; Bimmer E Claessen; Marielle Mahan; Mario F L Gaudino; Derrick Y Tam; José P S Henriques; Roxana Mehran; George D Dangas Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Ralf E Harskamp; John H Alexander; T Bruce Ferguson; Rebecca Hager; Michael J Mack; Brian Englum; Daniel Wojdyla; Phillip J Schulte; Nicholas T Kouchoukos; Robbert J de Winter; C Michael Gibson; Eric D Peterson; Robert A Harrington; Peter K Smith; Renato D Lopes Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Thomas S Valley; Theodore J Iwashyna; Colin R Cooke; Shashank S Sinha; Andrew M Ryan; Robert W Yeh; Brahmajee K Nallamothu Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-06-04
Authors: Xuejian Hou; Kui Zhang; Taoshuai Liu; Yang Li; Yang Zhao; Bangrong Song; Zhuhui Huang; Jubing Zheng; Ran Dong Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-01-24