Thomas A Schwann1, Robert H Habib2, Amelia Wallace3, David M Shahian4, Sean O'Brien3, Jeffery P Jacobs5, John D Puskas6, Paul A Kurlansky7, Milo C Engoren8, Robert F Tranbaugh9, Mark R Bonnell10. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio. Electronic address: thomas.schwann@utoledo.edu. 2. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Research Center, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Department of Surgery and Center for Quality and Safety, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 7. Department of Surgery, Columbia University, New York, New York. 8. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 9. Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 10. Department of Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 90% of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is performed with a single-arterial bypass graft (SABG), based on the left internal thoracic artery (ITA) with supplemental vein grafts. This practice, often justified by safety concerns with multiple-arterial grafting (MABG), defies evidence of improved late survival achieved with bilateral ITA (BITA-MABG) or left ITA plus radial artery (RA-MABG). We hypothesized that MABG and SABG are equally safe. METHODS: We analyzed The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database (2004 to 2015) to assess the operative safety of BITA-MABG (n = 73,054) and RA-MABG (n = 97,623) vs SABG (n = 1,334,511). Primary end points were operative (30-day or same hospitalization) mortality (OM) and deep sternal wound infections (DSWI). Risk-adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived from by logistic regression with sensitivity analyses in multiple subcohorts including MABG use rate. RESULTS: SABG (73.8% men; median age, 66 years), BITA-MABG (85.1% men; median age, 59 years), and RA-MABG (82.5% men; median age, 61 years) showed distinctly different patient characteristics. Compared with SABG (1.91% OM; 0.73% DSWI), observed OM was lower for BITA-MABG (1.19%, p < 0.001) and RA-MABG (1.19%, p < 0.001). DSWI was higher among BITA-MABG (1.08%, p < 0.001) and similar for RA-MABG (0.71%, p = 0.55). BITA-MABG showed marginally increased, likely not clinically significant, OM (AOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.30; p = 0.05) and doubled DSWI (AOR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.80 to 2.43; p < 0.001). RA-MABG had similar OM (AOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.15; p = 0.85) and DSWI (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.13; p = 0.70). Results were consistent across multiple subcohorts. A U-shaped OM vs BITA use relation was documented, with worse OM at hospitals with low (<5%: AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.61; p < 0.001) and high (≥40%: AOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.70; p = 0.049) BITA use. CONCLUSIONS: MABG in the United States is associated with OM comparable to SABG and increased DSWI risk with BITA-MABG. Our findings highlight the importance of surgeon and institutional experience and careful patient selection for BITA-MABG. Our short-term results should not in any way dissuade the use of MABG, given its well-established long-term survival advantage.
BACKGROUND: More than 90% of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is performed with a single-arterial bypass graft (SABG), based on the left internal thoracic artery (ITA) with supplemental vein grafts. This practice, often justified by safety concerns with multiple-arterial grafting (MABG), defies evidence of improved late survival achieved with bilateral ITA (BITA-MABG) or left ITA plus radial artery (RA-MABG). We hypothesized that MABG and SABG are equally safe. METHODS: We analyzed The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database (2004 to 2015) to assess the operative safety of BITA-MABG (n = 73,054) and RA-MABG (n = 97,623) vs SABG (n = 1,334,511). Primary end points were operative (30-day or same hospitalization) mortality (OM) and deep sternal wound infections (DSWI). Risk-adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived from by logistic regression with sensitivity analyses in multiple subcohorts including MABG use rate. RESULTS:SABG (73.8% men; median age, 66 years), BITA-MABG (85.1% men; median age, 59 years), and RA-MABG (82.5% men; median age, 61 years) showed distinctly different patient characteristics. Compared with SABG (1.91% OM; 0.73% DSWI), observed OM was lower for BITA-MABG (1.19%, p < 0.001) and RA-MABG (1.19%, p < 0.001). DSWI was higher among BITA-MABG (1.08%, p < 0.001) and similar for RA-MABG (0.71%, p = 0.55). BITA-MABG showed marginally increased, likely not clinically significant, OM (AOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.30; p = 0.05) and doubled DSWI (AOR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.80 to 2.43; p < 0.001). RA-MABG had similar OM (AOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.15; p = 0.85) and DSWI (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.13; p = 0.70). Results were consistent across multiple subcohorts. A U-shaped OM vs BITA use relation was documented, with worse OM at hospitals with low (<5%: AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.61; p < 0.001) and high (≥40%: AOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.70; p = 0.049) BITA use. CONCLUSIONS: MABG in the United States is associated with OM comparable to SABG and increased DSWI risk with BITA-MABG. Our findings highlight the importance of surgeon and institutional experience and careful patient selection for BITA-MABG. Our short-term results should not in any way dissuade the use of MABG, given its well-established long-term survival advantage.
Authors: Mario Gaudino; Umberto Benedetto; Stephen Fremes; Karla Ballman; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai; Art Sedrakyan; Giuseppe Nasso; Jai Raman; Brian Buxton; Philip A Hayward; Neil Moat; Peter Collins; Carolyn Webb; Miodrag Peric; Ivana Petrovic; Kyung J Yoo; Irbaz Hameed; Antonino Di Franco; Marco Moscarelli; Giuseppe Speziale; John D Puskas; Leonard N Girardi; David L Hare; David P Taggart Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 56.272
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 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: Lisa Q Rong; Mohammed Rahouma; Alexandra Lopes; Richard B Devereux; Jiwon Kim; Kane O Pryor; Leonard N Girardi; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Mario F L Gaudino Journal: J Card Surg Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 1.620
Authors: Adam S Evans; Menachem M Weiner; Shahzad Shaefi; Prakash A Patel; Matthew M Townsley; Abirami Kumaresan; Jared W Feinman; Ashley V Fritz; Archer K Martin; Toby B Steinberg; J Ross Renew; Jane L Gui; Brian Radvansky; Himani Bhatt; Sudhakar Subramani; Archit Sharma; Jacob T Gutsche; John G Augoustides; Harish Ramakrishna Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2019-11-09 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Etem Caliskan; Domingos Ramos de Souza; Andreas Böning; Oliver J Liakopoulos; Yeong-Hoon Choi; John Pepper; C Michael Gibson; Louis P Perrault; Randall K Wolf; Ki-Bong Kim; Maximilian Y Emmert Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 32.419