Joseph P DeSimone1, David J Malenka2, Paul W Weldner3, Alexander Iribarne2, Bruce J Leavitt4, Jock N McCullough2, Reed D Quinn5, Joseph D Schmoker4, Robert S Kramer5, Yvon Baribeau6, John D Klemperer7, Gerald L Sardella8, Elaine M Olmstead2, Cathy S Ross2, Anthony W DiScipio2. 1. Department of Surgery and Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. Electronic address: joseph.pp.desimone@hitchcock.org. 2. Department of Surgery and Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 3. Department of Surgery, Central Maine Medical Center, Lewiston, Maine. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, Vermont. 5. Department of Surgery, Maine Medical Center, Portland, Maine. 6. Department of Surgery, Catholic Medical Center, Manchester, New Hampshire. 7. Department of Surgery, Eastern Maine Medical Center, Bangor, Maine. 8. Department of Surgery, Concord Hospital, Concord, New Hampshire.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arterial conduits are preferred to venous conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting because of longer patency. A single internal mammary artery (SIMA) is used routinely. Bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) are used less frequently. We sought to determine whether BIMA were superior to SIMA. METHODS: From our regional registry of consecutive open heart operations, we identified 47,984 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from 1992 to 2014. Of the 1,482 BIMA patients, 1,297 were propensity matched to a cohort of SIMA patients. Short-term outcomes were compared using standard statistical techniques. Long-term survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier estimators and compared using a log-rank test. RESULTS: BIMA patients were younger and had fewer comorbid conditions than SIMA patients. After propensity weighting, BIMA and SIMA patients were well matched. There was no difference in in-hospital outcomes for BIMA versus SIMA patients for mortality (1.2% [n = 15] vs 0.8% [n = 10], p = 0.315), stroke (0.7% [n = 9] vs 0.7% [n = 9), p = 1.000), bleeding (2.2% [n = 28] vs 2.8% [n = 36], p = 0.311), or mediastinitis (0.8% [n = 10] vs 0.9% [n = 12], p = 0.667). The median follow-up was 12 years. Survival was better for BIMA than SIMA (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.91; p < 0.001). Survival curves began to separate after 5 years. At 15 years, the absolute difference in survival was 8.4%. CONCLUSIONS: In a large regional experience, BIMA is associated with no upfront risk of adverse events and improved long-term survival compared with SIMA. Our results indicate that BIMA conduits should be considered more frequently during coronary artery bypass grafting due to their demonstrated survival advantage.
BACKGROUND: Arterial conduits are preferred to venous conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting because of longer patency. A single internal mammary artery (SIMA) is used routinely. Bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) are used less frequently. We sought to determine whether BIMA were superior to SIMA. METHODS: From our regional registry of consecutive open heart operations, we identified 47,984 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from 1992 to 2014. Of the 1,482 BIMA patients, 1,297 were propensity matched to a cohort of SIMA patients. Short-term outcomes were compared using standard statistical techniques. Long-term survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier estimators and compared using a log-rank test. RESULTS: BIMA patients were younger and had fewer comorbid conditions than SIMA patients. After propensity weighting, BIMA and SIMA patients were well matched. There was no difference in in-hospital outcomes for BIMA versus SIMA patients for mortality (1.2% [n = 15] vs 0.8% [n = 10], p = 0.315), stroke (0.7% [n = 9] vs 0.7% [n = 9), p = 1.000), bleeding (2.2% [n = 28] vs 2.8% [n = 36], p = 0.311), or mediastinitis (0.8% [n = 10] vs 0.9% [n = 12], p = 0.667). The median follow-up was 12 years. Survival was better for BIMA than SIMA (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.91; p < 0.001). Survival curves began to separate after 5 years. At 15 years, the absolute difference in survival was 8.4%. CONCLUSIONS: In a large regional experience, BIMA is associated with no upfront risk of adverse events and improved long-term survival compared with SIMA. Our results indicate that BIMA conduits should be considered more frequently during coronary artery bypass grafting due to their demonstrated survival advantage.