Impact of total arterial revascularization on long term survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 130,305 patients

Surgical Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Underlying Atrial Fibrillation: State-of-the-Art Review

The number of individuals referred for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with preoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) is reported to be 8% to 20%. Atrial fibrillation is a known marker of high-risk patients as it was repeatedly found to negatively influence survival. Therefore, when performing surgical revascularization, consideration should be given to the concomitant treatment of the arrhythmia, the clinical consequences of the arrhythmia itself, and the selection of adequate surgical techniques. This state-of-the-art review aimed to provide a comprehensive analysis of the current understanding of, advancements in, and optimal strategies for CABG in patients with underlying AF. The following topics are considered: stroke prevention, prophylaxis and occurrence of postoperative AF, the role of surgical ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion, and an on-pump vs off-pump strategy. Multiple acute complications can occur in patients with preexisting AF undergoing CABG, each of which can have a significant effect on patient outcomes. Long-term results in these patients and the future perspectives of this scientific area were also addressed. Preoperative arrhythmia should always be considered for surgical ablation because such an approach improves prognosis without increasing perioperative risk. While planning a revascularization strategy, it should be noted that although off-pump coronary artery bypass provides better short-term outcomes, conventional on-pump approach may be beneficial at long-term follow-up. By collecting the current evidence, addressing knowledge gaps, and offering practical recommendations, this state-of-the-art review serves as a valuable resource for clinicians involved in the management of patients with AF undergoing CABG, ultimately contributing to improved outcomes and enhanced patient care.

Long Term Survival Benefits of Different Conduits Used in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery- A Single Institutional Practice Over 20 Years

Objective

This study determined hazard factors and long-term survival rate of total arterial coronary artery bypass graft surgery over 20 years in an extensively large, population-based cohort.

Methods

A total of 2979 patients who underwent isolated CABG from April 1999 to March 2020 were studied in 4 groups- Group-A (bilateral internal mammary artery ± radial artery), Group-B (single internal mammary artery + radial artery ± saphenous vein), Group-C (single internal mammary artery ± saphenous vein; no radial artery), and Group-D (radial artery ± saphenous vein; no internal mammary artery). The study endpoints analysed the correlation between the number and types of grafts with the survival time following isolated CABG surgery.

Results

The total arterial revascularization (Group A) group had an admirable mean long-term survival of ~19 years, compared to 18.6 years (Group B), 15.86 years (Group C), and 10.99 years (Group D). A Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated confidence interval (CI) for study groups- (95% CI 18.33-19.94), (95% CI 18.14-19.06), (95% CI 15.40-16.32), and (95% CI 9.61-12.38) in Group A, B, C, D respectively. In the Holm-Sidak method analysis, significant associations existed between the number of arterial grafts and the long-term outcome. A statistically significant (P≤0.05) long-term survival advantage for arterial grafting was demonstrated, especially total arterial revascularisation over all other combinations except single internal mammary artery + radial artery grafting.

Conclusion

In this series, over 20 years, total arterial CABG use has excellent long-term survival, achieving complete myocardial revascularisation. There is no significant difference between the BIMA group and SIMA with radial artery. However, there is a reduced survival with decreased use of arterial conduits.

Additional bypass graft or concomitant surgical ablation? Insights from the HEIST registry

BACKGROUND

Surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation at the time of isolated coronary artery bypass grafting is reluctantly attempted. Meanwhile, complete revascularization is not always possible in these patients. We attempted to counterbalance the long-term benefits of surgical ablation against the risks of incomplete revascularization.

METHODS

Atrial fibrillation patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel disease between 2012 to 2022 and included in the HEart surgery In atrial fibrillation and Supraventricular Tachycardia registry were divided into complete revascularization, complete revascularization with additional grafts, and incomplete revascularization cohorts; these were further split into surgical ablation and non-surgical ablation subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 8,405 patients (78% men; age 69.3 ± 7.9) were included; of those, 5,918 (70.4%) had complete revascularization, and 556 (6.6%) had surgical ablation performed. Number of anastomoses was 2.7 ± 1.2. The median follow-up was 5.1 [interquartile range 2.1-8.8] years. In patients in whom complete revascularization was achieved, surgical ablation was associated with long-term survival benefit: hazard ratio 0.69; 95% confidence intervals (0.50-0.94); P = .020 compared with grafting additional lesions. Similarly, in patients in whom complete revascularization was not achieved, surgical ablation was associated with a long-term survival benefit of 0.68 (0.49-0.94); P = .019. When comparing surgical ablation on top of incomplete revascularization against complete revascularization without additional grafts or surgical ablation, there was no difference between the 2: 0.84 (0.61-1.17); P = .307, which was also consistent in the propensity score-matched analysis: 0.75 (0.39-1.43); P = .379.

CONCLUSION

To achieve complete revascularization is of utmost importance. However, when facing incomplete revascularization at the time of coronary artery bypass grafting in a patient with underlying atrial fibrillation, concomitant surgical ablation on top of incomplete revascularization is associated with similar long-term survival as complete revascularization without surgical ablation.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery by-pass grafting in premature coronary artery disease: What is the evidence? -A narrative review

Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains one of the leading causes of death globally. In the United States of America, in 2016, 19% of all patients under the age of 65 died of cardiovascular disease despite improvements in primary prevention. The premature clinical onset of symptoms in the young population (<60 years) is much more aggressive than in the older population, and the overall long-term prognosis is poor. CAD appears to have a rapidly progressive form in those under the age of 60 due to genetic predisposition, smoking, and substance abuse, however, the ideal management strategy is still yet to be established. The two primary methods of establishing coronary revascularization are percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Despite the increasing prevalence of CAD in the young population, they are consistently underrepresented in major randomized clinical trials of each revascularization strategy. Both CABG and PCI are known to have similar survival rates, but PCI is associated with higher repeat revascularization rate. Many argue this may be due to the progressive nature of CAD combined with the vessel patency time required in a patient under 60 with potentially another 20-30 years of life. There is little in literature regarding the outcomes of these various revascularization strategies in populations under 60 years with CAD. This review summarises the current evidence for each revascularisation strategy in patients under the age of 60 and suggests future avenues of research for this unique age group.

Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Comparing the Long-Term Impact of Total Arterial Grafting With Multiarterial Plus Saphenous Vein Grafting

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes in a propensity matched population receiving total arterial grafting (TAG) and multiple arterial grafts (MAG) in addition to saphenous vein graft (SVG) following multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting requiring at least three distal anastomoses.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 655 patients from two centers met the inclusion criteria and were divided into two groups: TAG group (n = 231) and MAG + SVG group (n = 424). Propensity score matching was performed resulting in 231 pairs.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between both groups in terms of early outcomes. Survival probabilities at 5, 10, and 15 y were 89.1% versus 94.2%, 76.2% versus 76.1%, and 66.7% versus 69.8% in the TAG and MAG + SVG groups, respectively (hazard ratio stratified on matched pairs: 0.90; 95% confidence interval [0.45-1.77]; P = 0.754). Freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE) in the matched cohort did not show any significant difference between both groups. Probabilities at 5, 10, and 15 y were 82.7% versus 85.6%, 62.2% versus 75.3%, and 48.8% versus 59.5% in the TAG and MAG + SVG groups, respectively (hazard ratio stratified on matched pairs: 1.12; 95% confidence interval [0.65-1.92]; P = 0.679). Subgroup analyses of the matched cohort showed no significant difference between TAR with three arterial conduits compared to TAR with two arterial conduits with sequential grafting and MAG + SVG in terms of long-term survival and freedom from MACCE.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple arterial revascularizations in addition to SVG may yield comparable long-term outcomes in terms of survival and freedom from MACCE compared to total arterial revascularization.

Late Clinical Outcomes of Total Arterial Revascularization or Multiple Arterial Grafting Compared to Conventional Single Arterial with Saphenous Vein Grafting for Coronary Surgery

Coronary surgery provides better long-term outcomes than percutaneous coronary intervention. Conventional practice is to use a single arterial conduit supplemented by saphenous vein grafts. The use of multiple arterial revascularization (MAG), or exclusive arterial revascularization (TAR), however, is reported as having improved late survival. Survival is a surrogate for graft failure that may lead to premature death, and improved survival reflects fewer graft failures in the non-conventional strategy groups. The reasons for not using MAG or TAR may be due to perceived technical difficulties, a lack of definitive large-scale randomized evidence, a lack of confidence in arterial conduits, or resources or time constraints. Most people consider radial artery (RA) grafting to be new, with use representing approximately 2-5% worldwide, despite select centers reporting routine use in most patients for decades with improved results. In conclusion, the current body of evidence supports more extensive use of total and multiple arterial revascularization procedures in the absence of contraindications.

Additional survival benefit of bilateral in situ internal thoracic artery grafting with composite radial artery graft in total arterial off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to elucidate whether the use of bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITAs) confers additional survival benefits compared with a single internal thoracic artery (SITA) in total arterial grafting with the radial artery.

METHODS

Between 2002 and 2016, 617 patients underwent a bilateral in situ internal thoracic artery grafting with the radial artery as a composite I-graft (BITA-I group) and 516 patients underwent single in situ internal thoracic artery grafting with the radial artery as a composite Y-graft (SITA-Y group). All anastomoses were performed without cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic manipulation. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust covariates and compared the outcomes between the 2 groups. Subanalysis was also performed to evaluate the effects of the BITA-I group on survival according to the covariates using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching yielded 348 well-matched pairs. Early postoperative outcomes were similar in the 2 groups. The BITA-I group showed significantly better survival than the SITA-Y group (79.3% vs 70.2% at 10 years, P = .015). The subanalysis revealed a significantly better survival in the BITA-I group among overall patients (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.93). There was a significant positive effect on survival in the BITA-I group among patients without comorbidities or those aged <77 years.

CONCLUSIONS

BITA grafting with the radial artery provides better long-term survival than SITA grafting with the radial artery, which is enhanced among patients aged <77 years with minimum comorbidities.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Stenting versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

The debate over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent placement for the treatment of stable multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) continues in spite of numerous studies investigating the issue. This paper reviews the most recent randomized control trials (RCT) and meta-analyses of pooled RCT data to help address this issue. General trends demonstrated that CABG was superior in all-cause mortality and fulfilling the need for repeat revascularization. These advantages tended to be more pronounced in multivessel CAD and diabetes, and less so in left main CAD. PCI showed a consistently lower rate of cerebrovascular events. CABG continues to offer significant advantages over PCI, even as drug-eluting stent technology continues to evolve. The ideal endpoint for comparing PCI and CABG remains to be determined. Furthermore, additional research is required to further refine patient selection criteria for each intervention.

Multiple Grafting with Single Left Internal Mammary Artery as T-Graft with Itself

BACKGROUND

 Revascularization strategies might be limited in patients with lack of sufficient bypass graft material and increased risk of wound healing disturbances. In this regard, we present first results of patients treated with left internal mammary artery (LIMA) as T-graft with itself due to left-sided double-vessel disease, elevated risk of wound healing infection, and lack of graft material.

METHODS

 Eighteen patients were retrospectively analyzed in this study. All patients received LIMA grafting, and additional T-graft with itself during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. The investigation was focused on intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

 LIMA-LIMA T-graft was performed in a total of 18 patients. Mean Fowler score accounted for 18.2 ± 2.9. Severe vein varicosis was present in 9 patients, and 38.9% of patients had lacking venous graft material due to prior vein stripping. A total of 2.5 ± 0.5 distal anastomoses were performed. Mean flow of LIMA-left anterior descending anastomosis was 41.72 ± 12.11 mL/min with a mean pulsatility index (PI) of 1.01 ± 0.21. Mean flow of subsequent T-graft accounted for 26.31 ± 4.22 mL/min with a mean PI of 1.59 ± 0.47. Median hospital stay was 7(6.75;8) days. No incidence of postoperative wound healing disorders was observed and all patients were discharged off hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

 LIMA as T-graft with itself to treat left-sided double-vessel disease is feasible and safe in patients with missing bypass graft material and increased risk of deep sternal wound infection. Further prospective studies are necessary to confirm our results.

Multiarterial coronary grafting using the radial artery as a second arterial graft: how far does the survival benefit extend?

OBJECTIVES

Despite the 10-year results of the Arterial Revascularization Trial, the controversy regarding the survival benefit of multiarterial grafting (MAG) remains. Our goal was to present our long-term survival data in this propensity-matched observational study.

METHODS

A primary unmatched population of 4303 patients with first-time isolated coronary artery bypass grafts operated on between 2000 and 2018 were included. A total of 1187 post-matched patients were compared with matched controls. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analyses were undertaken to assess the contribution of MAG and other covariates to the long-term survival of unmatched and propensity-matched populations.

RESULTS

MAG was associated with increased median survival in both the unmatched and the matched groups; difference: 962 and 1459 days, log-rank tests; P = 0.029 and 0.0004, respectively. MAG was associated with a reduced hazard of death in the unmatched as well as in the matched groups: hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.72 (0.62-0.83); P < 0.0001 and 0.75 (0.64-0.88); P ≤ 0.0001, respectively. In the matched group, the prosurvival factors were low logistic EuroSCORE, obesity, no intra-aortic balloon pump, an ejection fraction >30%, age 50-69 years, operation by an experienced surgeon, with and without diabetes, on-pump surgery and 3 distal anastomoses. In a cohort of 242 late-presenting patients with reinfarction or recurrent angina, both MAG and control populations were associated with reduced median survival; median (95% CI): MAG: 3026 (1138-3503); control: 3035 (2134-3991), log-rank P = 0.217 with superior patency of the left internal mammary artery but no difference between radial artery and saphenous vein grafts.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiarterial revascularization, especially using the radial artery as a second arterial conduit, is associated with a significant survival benefit and a lack of in-hospital morbidity.

Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularisation Surgery: A Focused Review of the Available Literature

Minimally invasive coronary revascularisation was originally developed in the mid 1990s as minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting is a less invasive approach compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to address targets in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD). Since then, MIDCAB has evolved with the adoption of a robotic platform and the possibility to perform multivessel bypass procedures. Minimally invasive coronary revascularisation surgery also allows for a combination between the benefits of CABG and percutaneous coronary interventions for non-LAD lesions – a hybrid approach. Hybrid coronary revascularisation results in fewer blood transfusions, shorter hospital stay, decreased ventilation times and patients return to work sooner when compared to conventional CABG. This article reviews the available literature, describes standard approaches and considers topics, such as limited access procedures, indications and patient selection, diagnostics and imaging, techniques, anastomotic devices, hybrid coronary revascularisation and outcome analysis.

Prediction value of EuroSCORE II in total arterial revascularization and its usage in the evaluation of postoperative complications: Single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Total arterial revascularization is the most durable and technically the most demanding type of coronary artery bypass grafting procedure. It has proven long-term supremacy in comparison to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting. In our study, we investigated the reliability of EuroSCORE II as a predictor of intrahospital death. We showed its impact on adverse perioperative events.

METHODS

In this nonrandomized prospective study, we analyzed 116 consecutive patients who underwent the total arterial revascularization procedure at our Institute from January 2011 until the present. For myocardial revascularization, the most suitable combinations with left internal mammary artery, right internal mammary artery, and radial artery grafts were used. Main fact in this research was intrahospital mortality value in comparison with the value predicted.

RESULTS

There were 104 (89.7%) males and 12 (10.3%) females. Mean preoperative EuroSCORE II prediction value was 1.98% and postoperative we obtained 1.72%. Postoperative redo for bleeding was 6%. Positive correlation was proven between the EuoroSCORE II value and intensive care unit stay (0.452; p < 0.001). Among patients who received two internal mammary arteries, the highest EuroSCORE II was among those with presternal wound infection (p = 0.005). Patients with bilateral internal mammary arteries and diabetes showed that they have the highest values of EuroSCORE II and, at the same time, that they are extremely prone to wound problems.

CONCLUSIONS

We achieved a lower intrahospital mortality level than it was predicted with preoperative EuroSCORE II value. This tool is a reliable method for preoperative death risk calculation in this group of patients.

Does the Addition of a Gastroepiploic Artery to Bilateral Internal Thoracic Artery Improve Survival?

It is unclear whether the additional conduit to supplement bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA) influences the patient outcome in coronary surgery. This retrospective study compared long-term survival of patients undergoing left-sided BITA grafting in which the third conduit to the right coronary system (RCA) was either vein graft (SVG) or gastroepiploic artery (GEA). From 1989 to 2014, 1432 consecutive patients underwent left-sided revascularization with BITA associated with SVG (n = 599) or GEA (n = 833) to RCA. Propensity score was calculated by logistic regression model and patients were matched 1 to 1 leading to 2 groups of 320 matched patients. The primary end point was the overall mortality from any cause. GEA was used in significantly lower risk patients. The 30-day mortality was 1.6% without influence of the graft configuration. Postoperative follow-up was 13.6 ± 6.6 years and was 94% complete. The significant difference in patients' survival observed at 20 years in favor of GEA in unmatched groups (48 ± 4% vs 33 ± 6%, P < 0.001) was not confirmed in matched groups (41 ± 7% vs 36 ± 7%, P = 0.112). In multivariable Cox model analysis, the conduit used to RCA did not influence the long-term survival in matched groups, like no other graft configuration or operative parameter. Only complete revascularization remained predictor of survival (P = 0.016), with age (P < 0.0001), diabetes status (P = 0.007), and left ventricle ejection fraction (P < 0.0001). Long-term survival in patients undergoing BITA grafting is not affected by using GEA as third arterial conduit in alternative to SVG. Further studies are necessary to assess its impact on long-term cardiac events.

Long-term Outcomes Associated With Total Arterial Revascularization vs Non-Total Arterial Revascularization

Importance

The optimal conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain controversial in multivessel coronary artery disease.

Objective

To compare the long-term clinical outcomes of total arterial revascularization (TAR) vs non-TAR (CABG with at least 1 arterial and 1 saphenous vein graft) in a multicenter population-based study.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter population-based cohort study using propensity score matching took place from October 2008 to March 2017 in Ontario, Canada, with a mean and maximum follow-up of 4.6 and 9.0 years, respectively. Individuals with primary isolated CABG were identified, with at least 1 arterial graft. Exclusion criteria were individuals from out of province and younger than 18 years. Patients undergoing a cardiac reoperation or those in cardiogenic shock were also excluded because these conditions would potentially bias the surgeon toward not performing TAR. Analysis began April 2019.

Exposures

Total arterial revascularization.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcome was time to first event of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeated revascularization (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome.

Results

Of 49 404 individuals with primary isolated CABG, 2433 (4.9%) received TAR, with the total number of bypasses being 2, 3, and 4 or more vessels in 1521 (62.5%), 865 (35.6%), and 47 individuals (1.9%), respectively. The mean (SD) age was 61.2 (10.4) years and 1983 (81.5%) were men. After propensity score matching, 2132 patient pairs were formed, with equal total number of bypasses (mean [SD], 2.4 [0.5]) but with more arterial grafts in the TAR group (mean [SD], 2.4 [0.5] vs 1.2 [0.4]; P < .01). In-hospital death (15 [0.7%] vs 21 [1.0%]; P = .32) did not differ between TAR vs non-TAR groups after propensity score matching. Throughout 8 years, TAR was associated with improved freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89), death (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97), and myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51-0.92). There was no difference in stroke and repeated revascularization.

Conclusions and Relevance

Total arterial revascularization was associated with improved long-term freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, death, and myocardial infarction and may be the procedure of choice for patients with reasonable life expectancy requiring CABG.

How decisive is the number of distal arterial anastomoses in coronary bypass surgery?

Background

The benefit of arterial revascularization in coronary surgery remains controversial. The incremental value of additional grafts to the left internal thoracic artery (ITA) has been mainly assessed according to the number of arterial grafts, possibly limiting the detection of its actual impact. We analyzed the influence of the number of distal arterial anastomoses (DAA) performed on late mortality in patients having received from one to three arterial grafts.

Methods

Retrospective review of 3685 primary isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed from 1989 to 2014 was conducted with a 13-year mean follow-up. One arterial graft (SITA) was used in 969 patients, two arterial grafts, ITA or gastroepiploic artery (GEA), in 1883 patients (BITA: 1644; SITA+GEA: 239), and three arterial grafts in 833 patients (BITA+GEA). Totally, 795 patients (22%) received one DAA, 1142 patients (31%) two, 1337 patients (36%) three, and 411 patients (11%) four or more. A sub-group analysis was done in the 2104 patients with 3-vessel disease who received at least 2 arterial grafts.

Results

In this series the early mortality was 1.6% and it was not influenced by the surgical technique. Late mortality was significantly influenced by age, gender, heart failure, LV ejection fraction, diabetes status, complete revascularization, number of arterial grafts, number of DAA, both ITA, sequential ITA graft, GEA graft. In multivariable analysis with Cox regression model, the number of DAA was the only technical significant independent prognosis factor of late survival (p < 0.0001), predominant over both ITA, complete revascularization and number of arterial grafts. The impact of the number of DAA on survival was found discriminant from 1 to 3; after 3 there was no more additional effect. In 3-vessel disease patients who received at least 2 arterial grafts, the number of DAA remained a significant independent prognosis factor of late survival (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The number of distal arterial anastomoses is an independent predictor of long-term survival, predominant over the number of arterial grafts and the completeness of the revascularization; higher the number, better the late survival. It is a strong support of the extensive use of arterial grafting in CABG.

Branched internal mammary conduit permits non-sequenced total arterial revascularization

Recent trends in cardiac surgery have encouraged total arterial coronary revascularization, citing advantages in long-term patency and overall mortality. Often relying on sequenced, composite, and free-graft strategies, total arterial coronary revascularization is limited by conduit availability and surgical complexity. We present the use of bilateral internal mammary artery grafts to achieve nonsequential 3-vessel total arterial coronary revascularization using the preserved distal bifurcation of the right internal mammary artery. Utilization of distal internal mammary artery branches should be considered a viable strategy in select patients and can broaden the opportunities for total arterial coronary revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary disease.

Multi-arterial and total-arterial coronary revascularization: Past, present, and future perspective

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY

Although abundant biological, clinical, and scientific evidence exists on the superiority of multi-arterial (MAR) and total-arterial revascularization (TAR) over the conventional strategy with a single internal thoracic artery, only 10% of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the United States receives a second arterial conduit, and only 5% of patients receives TAR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In January 2020, the authors performed comprehensive search to identify studies that evaluated MAR and TAR strategies through the MEDLINE database.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, the authors reviewed the literature on the historical and current evidence in favor of MAR and TAR, thus underlying why current CABG practice needs qualitative improvement.

Total arterial off-pump coronary revascularization: The Holy Grail?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the standard of care for patients with complex multivessel coronary artery disease. However, conventional CABG utilizing left internal mammary artery and supplemental vein grafts performed on cardiopulmonary bypass is marred by questionable long-term patency of vein grafts and risk of neurological injury. Total arterial off-pump CABG is a strategy associated with avoidance of neurological injury and vein graft failure. The aim of this review is to summarize recent evidence on safety and effectiveness of total arterial off-pump CABG.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two key studies have been published recently. One describes a dual inflow technique that achieves anaortic, off-pump complete revascularization using arterial grafts only. The other is single centre study that reports 10-year survival of 89.33%, rate of freedom from repeat revascularization of 91.33% and early stroke rate of 0.9% after total arterial off-pump CABG.

SUMMARY

Total arterial off-pump CABG with its advantages of improved survival, enhanced freedom from repeat revascularization and low stroke rate can be regarded as the Holy Grail of myocardial revascularization. However, the results of a large, multicenter, prospective trial are required to substantiate this status.

Coronary artery bypass vs percutaneous coronary intervention in under 50s

BACKGROUND

Young patients with coronary artery disease are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) primarily, with a view to deferring coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We investigated the validity of this approach, by comparing outcomes in patients ≤50 years undergoing CABG or PCI.

METHODS

One hundred consecutive patients undergoing PCI and 100 undergoing CABG in 2004 were retrospectively studied to allow for 5 and 12 years follow-up. The two groups were compared for the primary endpoints of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE).

RESULTS

Diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and left ventricular ejection fraction <50% were higher in the CABG group. At 5 years, rates of myocardial infarction (MI) (9% vs 1%, P = .02), repeat revascularization (31% vs 7%, P < .01), and MACCE (34 vs 12, P < .01) were greater in the PCI vs the CABG group. Similarly, at 12 years, rates of MI (27.4% vs 19.4%, P = .19), repeat revascularization (41.1% vs 20.4%, P < .01), and MACCE (51 vs 40, P = .07) were greater in the PCI group. There were no differences in major outcomes in patients with 1 or 2VD, at 5 or 12 years. Rates of MI, revascularization, and MACCE were higher in patients with 3VD undergoing PCI (n = 21; MI, 47.6%; revascularization, 66.7%; and MACCE, 19 events) vs CABG (n = 78; MI, 19.2%; revascularization, 20.5%; and MACCE, 31 events); P < .01, for all end points.

CONCLUSIONS

MACCE was lower in young patients undergoing CABG vs PCI at both 5 and 12 years follow-up, primarily as a consequence of patients with 3VD undergoing PCI having more MI and repeat revascularization. CABG should remain the preferred method of revascularization in young patients with 3VD.

The Year in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: Selected Highlights from 2019

This highlights in our specialty for 2019 begin with the ongoing major developments in transcatheter valve interventions. Thereafter, the advances in left ventricular assist devices are reviewed. The recent focus on conduit selection and robotic options in coronary artery bypass surgery are then explored. Finally, this special articles closes with a discussion of pulmonary hypertension in noncardiac surgery, anesthetic technique in cardiac surgery, as well as postoperative pneumonia and its outcome consequences.

The ROMA trial: why it is needed

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We herein summarize the current evidence on the clinical outcome associated with the use of single and multiple arterial grafts for coronary bypass surgery and the role and importance of the Randomized comparison of the clinical Outcome of single versus Multiple Arterial grafts (ROMA) trial.

RECENT FINDINGS

Observational evidence suggests that the use of multiple arterial grafts is associated with better clinical outcomes compared to the use of a single arterial graft. Randomized evidence is inconclusive; the 5-year interim analysis of the largest randomized trial on the topic did not show any clinical benefit associated with the use of bilateral versus single internal thoracic arteries, whereas a pooled analysis of the trials comparing the radial artery and the saphenous vein as a second graft showed a significant reduction in follow-up cardiac events using the radial artery. Hidden confounders and treatment allocation biases as well as methodological flaws are the most likely explanation of this contradiction.

SUMMARY

ROMA was conceived based on the lessons learned from a critical analysis of the existing randomized and observational evidence with the aim to provide a definitive answer to the question of the potential clinical benefit of multiple arterial grafts for coronary bypass.

Arterial Grafts for Coronary Bypass

Observational and randomized evidence shows that arterial grafts have better patency rates than saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) in coronary artery bypass grafting. Observational studies suggest that the use of multiple arterial grafts is associated with longer postoperative survival, but this must be interpreted in the context of treatment allocation bias and hidden confounders intrinsic to the study designs. Recently, a pooled analysis of 6 randomized trials comparing the radial artery with the SVG as the second conduit and the largest randomized trial comparing the use of single and bilateral internal thoracic arteries have provided apparently divergent results about a clinical benefit with the use of >1 arterial conduit. However, both analyses have methodological limitations that may have influenced their results. At present, it is unclear whether the well-documented increased patency rate of arterial grafts translates into clinical benefits in the majority of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. A large randomized trial testing the arterial grafts hypothesis (ROMA [Randomized Comparison of the Clinical Outcome of Single Versus Multiple Arterial Grafts]) is underway and will report the results in a few years.

Revascularization in left ventricular dysfunction: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular dysfunction (LVD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with significant CAD and LVD are a high-risk patient population. They make up a minority of the cases from the largest, prospective coronary revascularization trials. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) Trial and its substudies are the most important and well cited in this field. The 10-year data from STICH showed that surgical revascularization was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy. Several smaller studies have confirmed that surgical revascularization carries a significant risk of short-term mortality but overall improved long-term outcomes in patients with LVD. Data from multiple observational studies further confirm that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is superior to percutaneous coronary revascularization for long-term survival and freedom from repeat revascularization in patients with LVD. We suggest that patients with LVD undergoing CABG should be considered for multiarterial grafting and that some patients may benefit from an off-pump procedure.

SUMMARY

Surgical revascularization confers a long-term survival benefit in patients with significant CAD and LVD. Further studies will be needed to precisely determine the ideal candidate for surgical versus percutaneous revascularization.

Total arterial revascularization strategies: A meta-analysis of propensity score-matched observational studies

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY

We explored the current evidence available on total arterial revascularization (TAR) carrying out a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies comparing TAR versus non-TAR strategy.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for propensity score-matched studies comparing TAR vs non-TAR. The generic inverse variance method was used to compute the combined hazard ratio (HR) of long-term mortality. The Der-Simonian and Laird method were used to compute the combined risk ratio (RR) of 30-day mortality, deep sternal wound infection, and reoperation for bleeding.

RESULTS

Eighteen TAR vs non-TAR matched populations were included. Meta-analysis showed a significant benefit in terms of long-term survival of the TAR group over the non-TAR group (HR: 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.78). Better long-term survival over non-TAR strategy was confirmed by both subgroups: TAR with the bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) and TAR without BIMA. Meta-regression suggests that TAR may offer a higher protective survival effect in diabetic patients (coefficient: -0.0063; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.0006), when carried out with BIMA (coefficient: -0.15; 95% CI: -0.27 to -0.03) or using three arterial conduits (coefficient: -0.12; 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.007). A TAR strategy carried out using BIMA, differently from TAR without BIMA, increases the risk of deep sternal infection (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17-1.77).

CONCLUSIONS

TAR provides a long-term survival benefit compared with the non-TAR strategy. Also, compared with TAR without BIMA, TAR with BIMA may offer a higher protective long-term survival effect at the expense of a higher risk of sternal deep wound infection.

Right internal thoracic or radial artery as the second arterial conduit for coronary artery bypass surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the available evidence on the use of the right internal thoracic artery (RITA) and the radial artery as the second arterial graft in coronary artery bypass surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The current data support the equipoise of the two conduits in terms of clinical and angiographic outcomes. Both RITA and radial artery have better patency than saphenous vein grafts. The use of the RITA carries an increased risk of deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) if the artery is harvested as pedicle. Bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting is more technically demanding than radial artery use and there is a volume-outcome relationship in terms of mortality and incidence of DSWI. The radial artery is preferable over RITA in right-sided or distal circumflex artery targets with high-degree stenosis and in patients at higher risk for DSWI, whereas it is not recommended to graft vessels with moderate stenosis and in cases of insufficient collateralization from the ulnar artery or previous transradial procedures.

SUMMARY

The patency rate and clinical outcomes of radial artery and RITA are similar. The use of one or the other should be based on a careful evaluation of the patient's coronary anatomy and comorbidities, the conduit availability and the surgeon's and center's experience.

Early vs Late Surgery for Patients With Endocarditis and Neurological Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical timing in infective endocarditis (IE) with preoperative neurological events remains controversial. The relevant society guidelines are each on the basis of a small number of observational studies. This meta-analysis was designed to search the available literature broadly and assess the weight of available evidence as comprehensively as possible.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to April 2018 for studies that compared mortality or neurological exacerbation in early vs late surgery for IE complicated by neurological events. Random effects meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven observational studies (25 unadjusted, n = 879; 2 adjusted, n = 451) met inclusion criteria. Using early and late thresholds defined in each study (7 or 14 days), early surgery in ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke was associated with elevated perioperative mortality vs late surgery (pooled relative risk [RR], 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.25; P < 0.0001; I² = 0%) and greater neurological exacerbation (RR, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-3.32; P = 0.002; I² = 33%). In subgroup analysis, for ischemic stroke, early surgery before 7 vs before 14 days exhibited similar perioperative mortality and neurological exacerbation. For hemorrhagic stroke, performing surgery before 21 vs before 28 days showed trends toward perioperative mortality (RR, 1.77 vs 0.63, interaction P = 0.14) and neurological (RR, 2.02 vs RR, 0.44; interaction P = 0.11) exacerbation. There was no difference in long-term mortality but reporting was sparse. Early surgery was often performed for clinical deterioration, negatively biasing outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Available observational data support delaying surgery by 7-14 days if possible in IE complicated by ischemic stroke and > 21 days in hemorrhagic stroke to decrease perioperative mortality and neurological exacerbation rates. Randomized trials are needed for definitive guidance.

Falling hospital and postdischarge mortality following CABG in New South Wales from 2000 to 2013

Objectives

To describe changes in mortality among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in New South Wales (NSW) Australia from 2000 to 2013.

Methods

Patients undergoing CABG were identified from the NSW Admission Patient Data Collection (APDC) registry, linked to the NSW state-wide death registry database. Changes in all-cause mortality over time were observed following stratification of the study cohort into two year groups.

Results

We identified 54 767 patients undergoing CABG during the study period. The risk profile of patients increased over time with significant increases in age, comorbidities and concomitant valve surgery (all p < 0.0001). During a median follow-up period of 6 years, a total 12 161 (22.2%) of patients had died. Survival curves and adjusted analyses showed a steady fall in mortality rate: those operated on during 2012–2013 had 40 % lower mortality than those operated on during 2000–2001 (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.69). This was contributed to both by a fall in mortality both in hospital (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.62) and postdischarge (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.86).

Conclusions

We report a consistent reduction in medium-term mortality among a large unselected cohort of NSW patients undergoing CABG between 2000 and 2013. This fall is attributable both to an improvement in outcomes in hospital and in the postdischarge period.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of early outcomes after endovascular versus open repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the early results of endovascular vs open thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies from January 2006 to March 2018 that compared endovascular vs open repair of TAAA using branched or fenestrated endografts. Data were subjected to a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The outcomes of interest included early mortality, spinal cord injury, renal failure requiring dialysis, stroke, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Eight comparative studies met inclusion criteria. There were two retrospective propensity-matched studies, two unadjusted single-center retrospective studies, and four unadjusted national population-based studies. Mortality in the matched studies was equivalent in both groups. Pooled analysis of all unmatched observational studies revealed a survival benefit for endovascular over open repair (relative risk [RR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI],0.45-0.87); P < .01, I² = 47%). Endovascular repair was also associated with lower incidence of spinal cord injury (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-1.01; P = .05; I² = 28%). For unmatched studies, pooled RR of renal failure requiring dialysis significantly favored endovascular repair (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85; P = .01; I² = 0%), although in the adjusted cohort, risk of dialysis was not different (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.06-15.65; P = 1.00). Postoperative stroke rate was reported in three unadjusted studies and was not different between groups (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.28-2.40; P = .71; I² = 77%). Hospital length of stay was reported in four studies and was shorter in the endovascular group (mean difference, -4.4 days; 95% CI, -6.6 to -1.7; P < .01; I² = 73%).

CONCLUSIONS

There are few reports comparing endovascular vs open repair of TAAAs. Short-term outcomes may be improved in patients undergoing endovascular treatment of TAAA on the basis of a limited number of studies with high risk of bias. These findings highlight the need for larger comparative studies with standardization of reporting.

State-of-the-Art Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Patient Selection, Graft Selection, and Optimizing Outcomes

Despite the progressive expansion of clinical indications for percutaneous coronary intervention and the increasingly high risk profile of referred patients, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the mainstay in multivessel disease, providing good long-term outcomes with low complication rates. Multiple arterial grafting, especially if associated with anaortic techniques, might provide the best longer-term outcomes. A surgical approach individualized to the patients' clinical and anatomic characteristics, and surgeon and team experience, are key to excellent outcomes. Current evidence regarding patient selection, indications, graft selection, and potential strategies to optimize outcomes in patients treated with CABG is summarized.

Long-term outcomes of multiple and single arterial off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

Background

To compare the clinical outcomes between multiple arterial (MA) and single arterial (SA) off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) when applied to left main coronary disease or three-vessel disease.

Methods

A total of 537 patients with left main coronary disease or three-vessel disease underwent MA OPCAB (n=114) or SA OPCAB (n=423) in our center from January 2006 to December 2008. The propensity score matching (PSM) was used to obtain the risk-adjusted outcome. Both the perioperative and long-term results were analyzed.

Results

The median follow-up time was 117 months (interquartile range, 110 to 128 months). There was no statistical difference in postoperative mortality and the volume of drainage. The intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) of the MA group was shorter than that of the SA group {1 [1-2] vs. 2 [1-3], P=0.001). In the long term, the mortality (5.7% vs. 17.5%, P=0.006), cardiac mortality (1.0% vs. 8.8%, P=0.008), fatal myocardial infarction (MI) rate (0.0% vs. 6.1%, P=0.015) and incidence of readmission for heart failure (19.8% vs. 37.7%, P=0.003) were lower in the MA group than in the SA group. The distributions of NYHA class (P<0.001) and CCS class (P<0.001) were better in the MA group than in the SA group. There was no significant difference in other outcomes. These results were consistent with the K-M curves of freedom from the adverse events.

Conclusions

MA OPCAB was as safe as SA OPCAB, providing better perioperative recovery and better long-term clinical outcomes in the treatment of left main coronary disease or three-vessel disease.

Bilateral versus Single Internal-Thoracic-Artery Grafts at 10 Years

BACKGROUND

Multiple arterial grafts may result in longer survival than single arterial grafts after coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. We evaluated the use of bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafts for CABG.

METHODS

We randomly assigned patients scheduled for CABG to undergo bilateral or single internal-thoracic-artery grafting. Additional arterial or vein grafts were used as indicated. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 10 years. The composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke was a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 1548 patients were randomly assigned to undergo bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafting (the bilateral-graft group) and 1554 to undergo single internal-thoracic-artery grafting (the single-graft group). In the bilateral-graft group, 13.9% of the patients received only a single internal-thoracic-artery graft, and in the single-graft group, 21.8% of the patients also received a radial-artery graft. Vital status was not known for 2.3% of the patients at 10 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 10 years, there were 315 deaths (20.3% of the patients) in the bilateral-graft group and 329 deaths (21.2%) in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.12; P=0.62). Regarding the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, there were 385 patients (24.9%) with an event in the bilateral-graft group and 425 patients (27.3%) with an event in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients who were scheduled for CABG and had been randomly assigned to undergo bilateral or single internal-thoracic-artery grafting, there was no significant between-group difference in the rate of death from any cause at 10 years in the intention-to-treat analysis. Further studies are needed to determine whether multiple arterial grafts provide better outcomes than a single internal-thoracic-artery graft. (Funded by the British Heath Foundation and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN46552265 .).

The impact of the radial artery or the saphenous vein in addition to the bilateral internal mammary arteries on late survival: A propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-term survival benefits of full arterial revascularization with radial artery (RA) used in addition to bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) compared with saphenous vein (SV) used in addition to BIMA has not been clearly defined.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 660 3-vessel coronary artery disease subjects who received BIMA in addition to either RA (n = 206) or SV (n = 454) grafting in a period between June 1999 and November 2017. After propensity score matching, we obtained 190 matched pairs for analysis.

RESULTS

In the matched population, in-hospital mortality occurred in 4 patients (1%), with 2 deaths (1.1%) in the BIMA + RA group and 2 deaths (1.1%) in BIMA + SV group (P > .99). The median follow-up time was 9.2 years (interquartile range, 5.6-13 years) with a maximum follow-up time of 18.5 years. There was not a significant difference in long-term survival between the 2 groups over the follow-up period. Survival at 5, 10, and 15 years were 94.8 ± 1.7%, 83.7 ± 3.1%, and 78.6 ± 3.9% in the BIMA + RA group and 96.2 ± 1.4%, 85.1 ± 2.9%, and 80.4 ± 3.6% in the BIMA + SV group (stratified log-rank P = .78). Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to estimate that the use of RA in addition to BIMA did not affect the late mortality (propensity score adjusted hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.79; P = .83).

CONCLUSIONS

In a relatively small population of triple-vessel coronary artery disease, the use of RA as a third arterial conduit with BIMA did not confer a long-term survival benefit.