Bobby Yanagawa1, Subodh Verma2, Peter Jüni3, Derrick Y Tam2, Amine Mazine2, John D Puskas4, Jan O Friedrich5. 1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: yanagawab@smh.ca. 2. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Applied Health Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, NY. 5. Critical Care and Medicine Departments, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis examines whether there is any advantage of coronary artery bypass graft with bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) as an in situ versus composite graft. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE Databases from 1996 to 2016 for studies that compared coronary artery bypass graft with BITA as in situ versus composite graft. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators and meta-analyzed with the use of random effects. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 705), 2 matched (n = 1688), and 4 unadjusted observational studies (n = 3517) met inclusion criteria. Composite grafting trended towards greater distal anastomoses (+0.22, 95% confidence interval, -0.01 to +0.45 anastomoses/patient; P = .06 [4 unadjusted observational studies]) and greater distal anastomoses using an internal thoracic artery (+0.80, 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.18 anastomoses/patient; P < .001 [1 RCT]). There were no differences in perioperative or longer-term composite cardiovascular outcomes comparing in situ versus composite BITA or individual outcomes of mortality, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality. Pooled results differed by study type with pooled results from lower-risk-of-bias RCTs typically showing increases in events rates, and pooled results from higher-risk-of-bias unadjusted observational studies typically showing decreases in event rates of in situ versus composite BITA. Post hoc subgroup analysis suggested possible improvements in all-cause mortality and revascularization for in situ BITA in studies with short-term (<5 years) versus longer-term follow-up, regardless of study type. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis found that use of BITA as a composite graft configuration facilitated greater internal thoracic artery revascularization but both grafting strategies offer similar clinical outcomes. Our study supports the use of in situ and composite BITA for select patients but high-quality, long-term prospective trials are needed.
OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis examines whether there is any advantage of coronary artery bypass graft with bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) as an in situ versus composite graft. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE Databases from 1996 to 2016 for studies that compared coronary artery bypass graft with BITA as in situ versus composite graft. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators and meta-analyzed with the use of random effects. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 705), 2 matched (n = 1688), and 4 unadjusted observational studies (n = 3517) met inclusion criteria. Composite grafting trended towards greater distal anastomoses (+0.22, 95% confidence interval, -0.01 to +0.45 anastomoses/patient; P = .06 [4 unadjusted observational studies]) and greater distal anastomoses using an internal thoracic artery (+0.80, 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.18 anastomoses/patient; P < .001 [1 RCT]). There were no differences in perioperative or longer-term composite cardiovascular outcomes comparing in situ versus composite BITA or individual outcomes of mortality, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality. Pooled results differed by study type with pooled results from lower-risk-of-bias RCTs typically showing increases in events rates, and pooled results from higher-risk-of-bias unadjusted observational studies typically showing decreases in event rates of in situ versus composite BITA. Post hoc subgroup analysis suggested possible improvements in all-cause mortality and revascularization for in situ BITA in studies with short-term (<5 years) versus longer-term follow-up, regardless of study type. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis found that use of BITA as a composite graft configuration facilitated greater internal thoracic artery revascularization but both grafting strategies offer similar clinical outcomes. Our study supports the use of in situ and composite BITA for select patients but high-quality, long-term prospective trials are needed.
Authors: Mario F L Gaudino; Sigrid Sandner; Giorgia Bonalumi; Jennifer S Lawton; Stephen E Fremes Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Mohamed Rahouma; Ahmed Abouarab; Antonino Di Franco; Jeremy R Leonard; Christopher Lau; Mohamed Kamel; Lucas B Ohmes; Leonard N Girardi; Mario Gaudino Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2018-07
Authors: Mario Gaudino; Antonino Di Franco; Mohamed Rahouma; Derrick Y Tam; Mario Iannaccone; Saswata Deb; Fabrizio D'Ascenzo; Ahmed A Abouarab; Leonard N Girardi; David P Taggart; Stephen E Fremes Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Mario Gaudino; Roberto Lorusso; Mohamed Rahouma; Ahmed Abouarab; Derrick Y Tam; Cristiano Spadaccio; Gaëlle Saint-Hilary; Jeremy Leonard; Mario Iannaccone; Fabrizio D'Ascenzo; Antonino Di Franco; Giovanni Soletti; Mohamed K Kamel; Christopher Lau; Leonard N Girardi; Thomas A Schwann; Umberto Benedetto; David P Taggart; Stephen E Fremes Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-01-22 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Janusz Konstanty-Kalandyk; Anna Kędziora; Piotr Mazur; Radosław Litwinowicz; Bogusław Kapelak; Jacek Piątek Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 3.240