Radial Artery vs Bilateral Mammary Composite Y Coronary Artery Grafting: 15-Year Outcomes

Consensus statement-graft treatment in cardiovascular bypass graft surgery

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is and continues to be the preferred revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease. Graft selection has been shown to influence the outcomes following CABG. During the last almost 60 years saphenous vein grafts (SVG) together with the internal mammary artery have become the standard of care for patients undergoing CABG surgery. While there is little doubt about the benefits, the patency rates are constantly under debate. Despite its acknowledged limitations in terms of long-term patency due to intimal hyperplasia, the saphenous vein is still the most often used graft. Although reendothelialization occurs early postoperatively, the process of intimal hyperplasia remains irreversible. This is due in part to the persistence of high shear forces, the chronic localized inflammatory response, and the partial dysfunctionality of the regenerated endothelium. "No-Touch" harvesting techniques, specific storage solutions, pressure controlled graft flushing and external stenting are important and established methods aiming to overcome the process of intimal hyperplasia at different time levels. Still despite the known evidence these methods are not standard everywhere. The use of arterial grafts is another strategy to address the inferior SVG patency rates and to perform CABG with total arterial revascularization. Composite grafting, pharmacological agents as well as latest minimal invasive techniques aim in the same direction. To give guide and set standards all graft related topics for CABG are presented in this expert opinion document on graft treatment.

Bilateral internal thoracic artery versus single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery: A double meta-analytic approach

OBJECTIVES

We explored the current evidence on the best second conduit in coronary surgery carrying out a double meta-analysis of propensity score matched or adjusted studies comparing bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) versus single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for propensity score matched or adjusted studies comparing BITA versus single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery. The end point was long-term mortality. Two statistical approaches were used: the generic inverse variance method and the pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data.

RESULTS

Twelve matched populations comparing 6450 patients with BITA versus 9428 patients with single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery were included in our meta-analysis. The generic inverse variance method showed a statistically significant survival benefit of the BITA group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95; P = .04). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years of the BITA group were 97.0%, 91.3%, 80.0%, and 68.0%, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years of the single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery group were 97.3%, 91.5%, 79.9%, and 63.9%, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data meta-analysis applied to very long follow-up time data, showed that BITA provided a survival benefit after 10 years from surgery (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = .01). No differences in terms of survival between the 2 groups were detected when the analysis was focused on the first 10 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.09; P = .93).

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis suggests that double internal thoracic artery may provide, compared with single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery, a statistically significant survival advantage after 10 years of follow-up, but not before. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Cardiac Surgery 2020 Reviewed

In 2020, nearly 30,000 published references appeared in the PubMed for the search term "cardiac surgery." While SARS-CoV-2 affected the number of surgical procedures, it did not affect outcomes reporting. Using the PRISMA approach, we selected relevant publications and prepared a results-oriented summary. We reviewed primarily the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with interventional alternatives. The coronary field started with a discussion on trial data value and their interpretation. Registry comparisons of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention confirmed outcomes for severe coronary artery disease and advanced comorbidities with CABG. Multiple arterial grafting was best. In aortic valve surgery, meta-analyses of randomized trials report that transcatheter aortic valve implantation may provide a short-term advantage but long-term survival may be better with classic aortic valve replacement (AVR). Minimally invasive AVR and decellularized homografts emerged as hopeful techniques. In mitral and tricuspid valve surgery, excellent perioperative and long-term outcomes were presented for structural mitral regurgitation. For both, coronary and valve surgery, outcomes are strongly dependent on surgeon expertise. Kidney disease increases perioperative risk, but does not limit the surgical treatment effect. Finally, a cursory look is thrown on aortic, transplant, and assist-device surgery with a glimpse into the current stand of xenotransplantation. As in recent years, this article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It does not expect to be complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. We aimed to provide up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.