Protocol for the Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART). A randomised trial to compare survival following bilateral versus single internal mammary grafting in coronary revascularisation [ISRCTN46552265]

BACKGROUND: Standard coronary artery bypass graft surgery uses a single internal mammary artery and supplemental vein or radial artery grafts. Several observational studies have suggested a survival benefit with two internal mammary artery grafts compared to a single internal mammary artery graft, but this has not been tested in a randomised trial. The Arterial Revascularisation Trial is a Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation funded, multi-centre international trial comparing single internal mammary artery grafting versus bilateral internal mammary artery grafting. METHODS/DESIGN: Twenty centres in the UK, Australia, Poland and Brazil are planning to randomise 3000 coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients to single or bilateral internal mammary artery grafting. Supplemental grafts may be either saphenous vein or radial artery. Coronary artery bypass grafting can be performed as an on-pump or off-pump procedure. The primary outcome is survival at 10 years and secondary end-points include clinical events, quality of life and cost effectiveness. The effect of age, left ventricular function, diabetes, number of grafts, vein grafts and off-pump surgery are pre-specified subgroups. DISCUSSION: The Arterial Revascularisation Trial is one of the first randomised trials to evaluate the effects on survival and other clinical outcomes of single internal mammary artery grafting versus bilateral internal mammary artery grafting, and will help to establish the best approach for patients requiring coronary artery bypass graft surgery

One-year costs of bilateral or single internal mammary grafts in the Arterial Revascularisation Trial

Objective: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) may improve survival over CABG using single internal mammary arteries (SIMA), but may be surgically more complex (and therefore costly) and associated with impaired sternal wound healing. We report, for the first time, a detailed comparison of healthcare resource use and costs over 12 months, as part of the Arterial Revascularisation (ART) Trial.  Methods: 3102 patients in 28 hospitals in seven countries were randomised to CABG surgery using BIMA (n=1548) or SIMA (n=1554). Detailed resource use data were collected covering surgery, the initial hospital episode, and for 12 months post randomisation. Using UK unit costs, total costs were calculated and compared between trial arms and for subgroups.  Results: Patients randomised to BIMA spent 20 min longer in theatre (95% CI 15 to 25, p<0.001) and also required more treatment for sternal wound problems. Mean (SD) total costs per patient at 12 months were £13 839 (£10 534) for BIMA and £12 717 (£9719) for SIMA (mean cost difference £1122, 95% CI £407 to £1838, p=0.002). No tests for interaction between subgroups and treatment allocation were significant.  Conclusions: At 12 months from randomisation, mean costs were approximately 9% higher in BIMA than SIMA patients, primarily due to longer time in theatre and in-hospital stay, and slightly higher costs related to sternal wound problems during follow-up. Follow-up to the primary trial endpoint of 10 years will reveal whether longer-term differences emerge in graft patency or in overall survival

Ten-year outcomes after off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting:Insights from the Arterial Revascularization Trial

Objective We performed a post hoc analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Trial to compare 10-year outcomes after off-pump versus on-pump surgery. Methods Among 3102 patients enrolled, 1252 (40% of total) and 1699 patients received off-pump and on-pump surgery (151 patients were excluded because of other reasons); 2792 patients (95%) completed 10-year follow-up. Propensity matching and mixed-effect Cox model were used to compare long-term outcomes. Interaction term analysis was used to determine whether bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting was a significant effect modifier. Results One thousand seventy-eight matched pairs were selected for comparison. A total of 27 patients (2.5%) in the off-pump group required conversion to on-pump surgery. The off-pump and on-pump groups received a similar number of grafts (3.2 ± 0.89 vs 3.1 ± 0.8; P = .88). At 10 years, when compared with on-pump, there was no significant difference in death (adjusted hazard ratio for off-pump, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.4; P = .54) or the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.2; P = .47). However, off-pump surgery performed by low volume off-pump surgeons was associated with a significantly lower number of grafts, increased conversion rates, and increased cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 2.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-4.47; P = .006) when compared with on-pump surgery performed by on–pump-only surgeons. Conclusions The findings showed that in the Arterial Revascularization Trial, off-pump and on-pump techniques achieved comparable long-term outcomes. However, when off-pump surgery was performed by low-volume surgeons, it was associated with a lower number of grafts, increased conversion, and a higher risk of cardiovascular death.</p

Effect of total arterial grafting in the Arterial Revascularization Trial

Objectives The Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART) was designed to compare 10-year survival in bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery grafts. The intention-to-treat analysis has showed comparable outcomes between the 2 groups but an explanatory analysis suggested that those receiving 2 or more arterial grafts had better survival. Whether the exclusive use of arterial grafts provide further benefit is unclear. Methods We performed an exploratory analysis of the ART based on conduits actually received (as-treated principle). From ART cohort, only patients receiving at least 3 grafts were included. The final population consisted of 1084, 1010, and 390 patients in the single arterial graft (SAG) group, in the multiple arterial graft (MAG) group (2 or more arterial grafts with additional saphenous veins) and total arterial graft (TAG) group (3 or more arterial grafts only) respectively. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used for comparison. Results When compared with the SAG group, there was a significant trend toward a reduction of 10-year mortality in the MAG and TAG group (test for trend P = .02). The TAG group was associated with the lowest risk of late mortality (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.96; P = .03) and with a significant risk reduction of the composite of death/myocardial infarction/stroke and repeat revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.94; P = .02). Conclusions When compared with SAG, both MAG and TAG represent valuable strategies to improve clinical outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting but TAG can potentially provide further benefit.</p

Angiographic outcome of coronary artery bypass grafts: Radial Artery Database International Alliance

BACKGROUND: We used a large patient-level dataset including six angiographic randomized trials (RCTs) on coronary artery bypass conduits to explore incidence and determinants of coronary graft failure. METHODS: Patient-level angiographic data of six RCTs comparing long-term outcomes of the radial artery and other conduits were joined. Primary outcome was graft occlusion at maximum follow-up. The analysis was divided as follows: 1) left anterior descending coronary (LAD) distribution, 2) non-LAD distribution (circumflex and right coronary artery). To identify predictors of graft occlusion, mixed model multivariable Cox regression including all baseline characteristics with stratification by individual trials was used. RESULTS: 1091 patients and 2281 grafts were included (921 left internal mammary arteries, 74 right internal mammary arteries, 710 radial artery and 576 saphenous veins; all left internal mammary arteries were used on the LAD, the other conduits were used on the non-LAD distribution; mean angiographic follow up: 65±29 months). Occlusion rate was 2.3%, 13.5%, 9.4%, 17.5% for the left internal mammary arteries, right internal mammary arteries, radial artery and saphenous veins, respectively. At multivariable analysis type of conduit used, age, female gender, left ventricular ejection fraction<50% and use of the Y graft were significantly associated with graft occlusion in the non-LAD distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses showed that failure of the left internal mammary arteries to LAD bypass is a very uncommon event. For the non-LAD distribution, the non-use of radial artery, age, female gender, left ventricular ejection fraction<50% and use of the Y graft configuration were significantly associated with mid-term graft failure

Variations in clinical decision-making between cardiologists and cardiac surgeons; a case for management by multidisciplinary teams?

OBJECTIVE: To assess variations in decisions to revascularise patients with coronary heart disease between general cardiologists, interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons DESIGN: Six cases of coronary heart disease were presented at an open meeting in a standard format including clinical details which might influence the decision to revascularise. Clinicians (n = 53) were then asked to vote using an anonymous electronic system for one of 5 treatment options: medical, surgical (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or initially medical proceeding to revascularisation if symptoms dictated. Each case was then discussed in an open forum following which clinicians were asked to revote. Differences in treatment preference were compared by chi squared test and agreement between groups and between voting rounds compared using Kappa. RESULTS: Surgeons were more likely to choose surgery as a form of treatment (p = 0.034) while interventional cardiologists were more likely to choose PCI (p = 0.056). There were no significant differences between non-interventional and interventional cardiologists (p = 0.13) in their choice of treatment. There was poor agreement between all clinicians in the first round of voting (Kappa 0.26) but this improved to a moderate level of agreement after open discussion for the second vote (Kappa 0.44). The level of agreement among surgeons (0.15) was less than that for cardiologists (0.34) in Round 1, but was similar in Round 2 (0.45 and 0.45 respectively) CONCLUSION: In this case series, there was poor agreement between cardiac clinical specialists in the choice of treatment offered to patients. Open discussion appeared to improve agreement. These results would support the need for decisions to revascularise to be made by a multidisciplinary panel