Left-Sided Complete Revascularization With Bilateral Internal Thoracic Arteries in Patients With Diabetes

Multiarterial vs Single-Arterial Coronary Surgery: 10-Year Follow-up of 1 Million Patients

BACKGROUND

Although many options exist for multivessel coronary revascularization, controversy persists over whether multiarterial grafting (MAG) confers a survival advantage over single-arterial grafting (SAG) with saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This study sought to compare longitudinal survival between patients undergoing MAG and those undergoing SAG.

METHODS

All patients undergoing isolated CABG with ≥2 bypass grafts in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (2008-2019) were linked to the National Death Index. Risk adjustment was performed using inverse probability weighting and multivariable modeling. The primary end point was longitudinal survival. Subpopulation analyses were performed and volume thresholds were analyzed to determine optimal benefit.

RESULTS

A total of 1,021,632 patients underwent isolated CABG at 1108 programs (100,419 MAG [9.83%]; 920,943 SAG [90.17%]). Median follow-up was 5.30 years (range, 0-12 years). After risk adjustment, all characteristics were well balanced. At 10 years, MAG was associated with improved unadjusted (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI 0.58-0.61) and adjusted (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.88) 10-year survival. Center volume of ≥10 MAG cases/year was associated with benefit. MAG was associated with an overall survival advantage over SAG in all subgroups, including stable coronary disease, acute coronary syndrome, and acute infarction. Survival was equivalent to that with SAG for patients age ≥80 years and those with severe heart failure, renal failure, peripheral vascular disease, or obesity. Only patients with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2 had superior survival with SAG.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiarterial CABG is associated with superior long-term survival and should be the surgical multivessel revascularization strategy of choice for patients with a body mass index of less than 40 kg/m2.

Bypass Grafting to Circumflex: Left Internal Thoracic Artery versus Saphenous Vein

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) and in situ left internal thoracic artery (LITA) grafts to the left circumflex artery (LCX) territory.

METHODS

This study included 678 patients who underwent LITA-left anterior descending (LAD) + SVG-LCX grafts and 286 patients who underwent right internal thoracic artery (RITA)-LAD + in situ LITA-LCX grafts from January 2002 to December 2020. Short-term and long-term clinical outcomes were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment to reduce selection bias.

RESULTS

In-hospital mortality was significantly higher for the SVG-LCX group (p = 0.008), whereas deep sternal wound infection was significantly higher in the LITA-LCX group (p = 0.013).Survival rates at 5 and 10 years were 83.12 and 71.45% in the SVG-LCX group, whereas 75.24 and 65.54% in the LITA-LCX group (log-rank p = 0.114). Rates of freedom from cardiac events at 5 and 10 years were 92.82 and 85.24% in the SVG-LCX group, whereas 94.89 and 89.46% in the LITA-LCX group (log-rank p = 0.179).Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that proximal severe stenosis was significantly protective against graft dysfunction before discharge (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.81).

CONCLUSION

Deep sternal wound infection was significantly higher for LITA to LCX bypass whereas in-hospital mortality was higher for SVG to LCX. In situ LITA to LCX bypass grafting exhibited similar long-term outcomes with SVG to LCX bypass grafting in adjusted patient cohorts. Proximal severe stenosis of LCX was protective against graft dysfunction.