The effect of total arterial grafting on medium-term outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While it is believed that total arterial grafting (TAG) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) confers improved long-term outcomes when compared to conventional grafting with left internal mammary artery and saphenous vein grafts (LIMA+SVG), to date, this has not become the standard of care. In this study, we assessed the impact of TAG on medium-term outcomes after CABG.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Peri-operative data was prospectively collected on consecutive first-time, isolated CABG patients between 1995 and 2005. Patients were divided into two groups based on grafting strategy: TAG (all arterial grafts no saphenous veins) or LIMA+SVG. Patients who had an emergent status or underwent fewer than two distal bypasses were excluded. Medium term univariate and risk-adjusted comparisons between TAG and LIMA+SVG cases were performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 4696 CABG patients were included with 1019 patients undergoing TAG (22%). Unadjusted in-hospital mortality was 1.5% for TAG patients compared to 2.0% for LIMA+SVG (p = 0.31). The mean follow-up was 4.8 ± 2.0 years for TAG patients compared to 6.1 ± 3.0 years for LIMA+SVG patients (p < 0.0001). At follow-up total mortality (8% vs 19%; p < 0.0001), and the incidence of readmission to hospital for cardiac reasons (29% vs 38%; p < 0.0001) were significantly lower in TAG compared to LIMA+SVG patients. However, after adjusting for clinical covariates, TAG did not emerge as a significant independent predictor of long-term mortality (HR 0.92; CI 0.71–1.18), readmission to hospital (HR 1.02; CI 0.89–1.18) or the composite outcome of mortality and readmission (HR 1.00; CI 0.88–1.15). Risk adjusted survival was better than 88% in both TAG and LIMA-SVG patients at 5 years follow-up.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients undergoing TAG appear to experience lower rates of medium-term all-cause mortality and readmission to hospital for any cardiac cause when compared to patients undergoing LIMA+SVG. However, after adjusting for clinical variables, this difference no longer persists suggesting that at median follow-up there are no mortality or morbidity benefit based on the choice of conduit.</p

Contemporary use of arterial and venous conduits in coronary artery bypass grafting:anatomical, functional and clinical aspects

Although the benefits of using the left internal mammary artery to bypass the left anterior descending artery (LAD) have been extensively ascertained, freedom from major cardiovascular events and survival after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) also correlate with the completeness of revascularisation. Hence, careful selection of the second-best graft conduit is crucial for CABG success. The more widespread use of saphenous vein grafts contrasts with the well-known long-term efficacy of multiple arterial grafting, which struggles to emerge as the procedure of choice due to concerns over increased technical difficulties and higher risk of postoperative complications. Conduit choice is at the discretion of the operator instead of being discussed by the heart team, where cardiologists are not usually engaged in such decisions due to a hypothetical lack of technical knowledge. Furthermore, according to the ESC/EACTS guidelines, traditional CABG remains the gold standard for multi-vessel coronary artery disease with complex LAD stenosis, but hybrid procedures using percutaneous coronary intervention for non-LAD targets could combine the best of two worlds. With the aim of raising the cardiologist’s awareness of the surgical treatment options, we provide a comprehensive overview of the anatomical, functional and clinical aspects guiding the decision-making process in CABG strategy