Mikael Janiec1,2, Axel Dimberg1,2, Timo Z Nazari Shafti3,4, Bo Lagerqvist5,6, Rickard P F Lindblom1,2. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Anaesthesia, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. 2. Section of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 3. Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 4. Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Berlin, Germany. 5. Department of Cardiology and Clinical Physiology, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden. 6. Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala Clinical Research Centre, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Coronary artery bypass grafting using saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) in addition to the left internal mammary artery (IMA) graft is vitiated by poor long-term patency of the vein grafts. Hypothetically, the increased use of arterial grafts could confer even better outcomes. Our goal was to evaluate results after coronary artery bypass grafting in Sweden, where arterial grafts were used as a second conduit. METHODS: Within the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) registry, we identified patients who had coronary artery bypass grafting from 2001 to 2015 using the IMA and the SVG, the radial artery (RA) or the additional IMA [bilateral IMA (BIMA)] as a second conduit. Deaths, postoperative incidence of coronary angiography and need for reintervention were recorded, and multivariable adjusted hazard ratios were calculated for different types of grafts. RESULTS: The study population comprised 46 343 cases of IMA + SVG, 1036 cases of IMA + RA and 862 cases of BIMA. The mean follow-up time (SD) was 9.3 (4.2) years for IMA + SVG, 10.7 (4.1) years for IMA + RA grafts and 5.5 (5.0) years for the BIMA graft. The adjusted hazard ratio for death was (95% confidence interval) 1.01 (0.89-1.14) for IMA + RA and 0.87 (0.72-1.06) for BIMA grafts compared with IMA + SVG. The adjusted hazard ratio for the first angiographic examination was (95% confidence interval) 0.96 (0.84-1.10) for IMA + RA and 1.13 (0.95-1.35) for BIMA grafts. The adjusted hazard ratio for the need for reintervention was (95% confidence interval) 0.91 (0.75-1.09) for IMA + RA and 1.26 (1.00-1.58) for BIMA grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had arterial grafts as second conduits did not demonstrate a better outcome in any of the studied end-points. Radial artery grafts seem to be preferable to BIMA grafts as an alternative to an SVG.
OBJECTIVES: Coronary artery bypass grafting using saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) in addition to the left internal mammary artery (IMA) graft is vitiated by poor long-term patency of the vein grafts. Hypothetically, the increased use of arterial grafts could confer even better outcomes. Our goal was to evaluate results after coronary artery bypass grafting in Sweden, where arterial grafts were used as a second conduit. METHODS: Within the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) registry, we identified patients who had coronary artery bypass grafting from 2001 to 2015 using the IMA and the SVG, the radial artery (RA) or the additional IMA [bilateral IMA (BIMA)] as a second conduit. Deaths, postoperative incidence of coronary angiography and need for reintervention were recorded, and multivariable adjusted hazard ratios were calculated for different types of grafts. RESULTS: The study population comprised 46 343 cases of IMA + SVG, 1036 cases of IMA + RA and 862 cases of BIMA. The mean follow-up time (SD) was 9.3 (4.2) years for IMA + SVG, 10.7 (4.1) years for IMA + RA grafts and 5.5 (5.0) years for the BIMA graft. The adjusted hazard ratio for death was (95% confidence interval) 1.01 (0.89-1.14) for IMA + RA and 0.87 (0.72-1.06) for BIMA grafts compared with IMA + SVG. The adjusted hazard ratio for the first angiographic examination was (95% confidence interval) 0.96 (0.84-1.10) for IMA + RA and 1.13 (0.95-1.35) for BIMA grafts. The adjusted hazard ratio for the need for reintervention was (95% confidence interval) 0.91 (0.75-1.09) for IMA + RA and 1.26 (1.00-1.58) for BIMA grafts. CONCLUSIONS:Patients who had arterial grafts as second conduits did not demonstrate a better outcome in any of the studied end-points. Radial artery grafts seem to be preferable to BIMA grafts as an alternative to an SVG.
Authors: Mario Gaudino; Joanna Chikwe; Volkmar Falk; Jennifer S Lawton; John D Puskas; David P Taggart Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 4.191
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