A meta-analysis of adjusted hazard ratios from 20 observational studies of bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery coronary artery bypass grafting

Sequential composite BIMA grafting for 3v-CAD: factors that predict successful outcome of the one-inflow and two-inflow revascularization techniques

OBJECTIVE

The effect of one-inflow and two-inflow coronary surgical revascularization techniques inclosing skeletonized double mammary artery (BIMA) as T-graft on outcome is studied.

METHODS

Early ad mid-term outcome of complete BIMA revascularization (C-T-BIMA) versus left-sided BIMA with right-sided aorto-coronary bypass (L-T-BIMA + R-CABG) is quantified and analyzed by multivariate logistic regression, Cox-regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis in a series of 204 consecutive patients treated for triple-vessel coronary disease (3v-CAD).

RESULTS

The L-T-BIMA + R-CABG technique (n = 104) enables higher number of total (4.02 ± 0.87 vs. 3.71 ± 0.69, p = 0.015) and right-sided (1.21 ± 0.43 vs. 1.02 ± 0.32, p = 0.001) coronary anastomoses, improves total bypass flow (125.88 ± 92.41 vs. 82.50 ± 49.26 ml, p < 0.0001) and bypass flow/anastomosis (31.83 ± 23.9 vs.22.77 ± 14.23, p = 0.001), and enhances completeness of revascularization (84% vs.69%, p = 0.014) compared to C-T-BIMA strategy (n = 100), respectively. Although the incidence of MACCE was comparable in the two groups (8% vs.1.2%, p = 0.055), the progression of functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) was significantly lower after L-T-BIMA + R-CABG, then after C-T-BIMA (47% vs.64%, p = 0.017). The use of C-T-BIMA-technique (HR = 4.2, p = 0.01) and preoperative RCA occlusion (HR = 3.006, p = 0.023) predicted FMR progression, whereas L-T-Graft + R-CABG technique protected against it (X2 = 14.04, p < 0.0001) independent of the anatomic and clinical complexity (Syntax score I: HR = 16.2, p = 0.156, Syntax score II: HR = 1.901, p = 0.751), of early- (0.96% vs.2%, p = 0.617) and mid-term mortality (5.8% vs.4%, p = 0.748) when compared to C-T-BIMA, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The two-inflow coronary revascularization by L-T-BIMA + R-CABG better protects against FMR progression without increasing MACCE and mortality. Older patients with RCA occlusion and reduced LV-EF benefit most from the two-inflow L-T-BIMA + R-CABG technique. Younger 3v-CAD patients with normal LV-EF can preferentially be managed with the one-inflow C-T-BIMA; however, long-term outcome remains to be revealed.

Superior Outcomes of Dual-Arterial Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Are Maintained in the Veterans Health Administration

INTRODUCTION

Controversy surrounds the long-term clinical benefit of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using dual arterial grafts (DAGs) compared to single arterial grafts (SAGs). We investigated outcomes of DAG, using single internal thoracic artery and radial artery (DAG-RA) or bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts (DAG-BITA), compared to SAG, using the left internal thoracic artery and saphenous vein grafts, in the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VA).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of U.S. Veterans undergoing isolated on-pump CABG between 2005 and 2015 at 44 VA medical centers. The primary composite outcome was first occurrence of a major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), comprised of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization.

RESULTS

Among 25,969 Veterans undergoing isolated CABG, 1261 (4.9%) underwent DAG (66.8% DAG-RA and 33.2% DAG-BITA). Over a 5-y follow-up, DAG was associated with lower rates of all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.85), MACCE (AHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71-0.91), and stroke (AHR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.96) versus SAG. DAG-BITA was associated with lower rates of all-cause death (AHR 0.52, 95% CI 0.35-0.77) and MACCE (AHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.84) than SAG, while DAG-RA was associated with lower rates of all-cause death (AHR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

In the VA, DAG was associated with improved long-term MACCE outcomes compared to SAG. These results suggest that the practice of DAG in the VA benefits Veterans and should be promoted further.

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.

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.

Effect of right internal mammary artery versus radial artery as a second graft vessel in coronary artery bypass grafting on postoperative wound infection in patients: A meta-analysis

Few studies have shown that radial artery (RA), which is used as a secondary arterial graft, offers superior results compared with right internal thoracic artery (RIMA) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In a meta-analysis of observational studies starting in 2023, we looked at the effect of re-operation on postoperative infection and haemorrhage in CABG with RA vs. RIMA. The electronic database up to October 2023 was examined in the course of the research. Analysis was carried out on the clinical trials of postoperative wound infections and haemorrhage re-surgery. Among 912 trials associated with CABG, we selected 8 trials to be included in the final data analysis. The main results were secondary wound infection and re-operation after surgery. The odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CIs) were computed on the basis of a randomized or fixed-effect model of wound infection and re-operation. Seven trials showed a significant reduction in the risk of wound infection in RA treated as a secondary artery transplant compared with RIMA (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.03, 2.47 p = 0.04); Four trials showed that RIMA was not significantly different from RA in the rate of re-operation for postoperative bleeding (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.60, 2.88 p = 0.50). In CABG, RA is used as a secondary arterial conduit graft to lower the risk of wound infection in CABG patients.

Very Long-term Outcome of Bilateral Internal Thoracic Artery in Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-analysis

The benefits of single (SITA) and bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA) in diabetics undergoing coronary bypass grafting (CABG) are conflicting. We undertook a study-level meta-analysis to compare early and long-term outcomes of both CABG configurations. PubMed, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched for studies comparing BITA versus SITA for isolated CABG surgery in diabetics. Randomized trials or observational studies were considered eligible for the analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves of long-term survival were reconstructed and compared with Cox linear regression; incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for long-term survival were calculated. Landmark analysis and time-varying hazard ratio (HR) were analyzed. Odds ratios (OR) were extracted for early mortality, postoperative stroke, deep sternal wound infection (DSWI), and myocardial infarction (MI). A random effects meta-analysis was performed. Sensitivity analyses included leave-one-out-analyses and meta-regression. Thirteen studies (7332 patients) were included. Overall, at 20-year follow-up, BITA was associated with higher survival (HR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.84; P < 0.0001). Time-varying HR and landmark analysis reported BITA was associated with a higher rate of 10-year survival (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.82, P < 0.0001), while from 10 to 20-year follow-up no difference was revealed (HR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.82-1.19, P = 0.93). There was no increase in early mortality, postoperative MI, stroke, or DSWI between the groups. At meta-regression, the higher the age, the higher the long-term overall survival in patients with BITA. In diabetics, the BITA approach is associated with improved 10-year survival with no increase in early mortality, MI, stroke, or DSWI. In the 10-20-year timeframe, BITA and SITA showed comparable survival.

Sternal wound infections following internal mammary artery grafts for a coronary bypass: A meta-analysis

The meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the sternal wound infections following internal mammary artery grafts for a coronary bypass. Examinations comparing bilateral internal mammary artery to single internal mammary artery for coronary artery bypass grafting were among the meta-analyses from various languages that met the inclusion criteria. Using dichotomous random- or fixed-effect models, the results of these investigations were examined, and the Odd Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was computed. A total of 31 examinations from 2001 to 2023 were recruited for the current analysis including 181 503 personals with coronary artery bypass grafting. Bilateral internal mammary artery had significantly higher sternal wound infection (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.37-1.68, p < 0.001), superficial sternal wound infection (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.16-2.56, p = 0.007), deep sternal wound infection (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.41-1.86, p < 0.001), sternal wound infection in diabetics (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.16-1.90, p = 0.002), sternal wound infection in elderly (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.57, p < 0.001), sternal wound infection in pedicled preparation (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.30-2.23, p < 0.001) and sternal wound infection in skeletonized preparation (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.09-1.81, p = 0.009) compared to single internal mammary artery in personals with coronary artery bypass grafting. Bilateral internal mammary artery grafting is linked to a higher risk of impaired wound healing, particularly in diabetic individuals, elderly, pedicled preparation, and skeletonized preparation. Nevertheless, caution should be exercised while interacting with its values since examinations were performed by different surgeons with different skills on different types of personals.

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.

Bilateral Internal Thoracic Arteries Improve 10-Year Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

BACKGROUND

This observational cohort study was designed by the PRIORITY (PRedictIng long-term Outcomes afteR Isolated coronary arTery bypass surgery) steering committee to evaluate the 10-year follow-up outcome of bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA) versus single internal thoracic artery.

METHODS

The PRIORITY project was designed to evaluate long-term outcome of 2 large prospective multicenter cohort studies of coronary artery bypass grafting. Clinical data on isolated coronary artery bypass grafting were merged with administrative data to collect follow-up information. The primary endpoint was the composite outcome of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 10-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints were individual components of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 10 years and surgical site complications or infections. A propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to overcome the selection bias related to the observational nature of the study.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 10,988 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. BITA was used in 23.5%. The use of BITA is related to lower incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 10 years (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.98, P < .001). BITA correlated with better 10-year survival (IPTW adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78-1.00, P = .05), re-revascularization (IPTW adjusted HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.92, P < .001), and myocardial infarction (IPTW adjusted HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77-0.95, P = .005) but to increased incidence of surgical site complications or infections (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.39-3.24, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In propensity-matched patients, use of BITA was associated with improved 10-year survival, freedom from repeat revascularization, and myocardial infarction but also higher incidence of surgical site complications.

Long-Term Survival of Multiple Versus Single Arterial Coronary Bypass Grafting in Elderly Patients

Multiple arterial grafting (MAG) utilizes more than one arterial graft with any additional grafts being saphenous vein grafts (SVG). It remains an infrequently used coronary surgical revascularization technique, especially in elderly patients. Our study aims to evaluate the age-related association with the relative outcomes of multiple versus single arterial grafting (SAG). The Australian and New Zealand national registry was used to identify adult patients undergoing primary isolated CABG with at least two grafts. Exclusion criteria included reoperations, concomitant or previous cardiac surgery, and the absence of arterial grafting. Propensity score matching was used to match patient groups. The primary outcome was all-cause late mortality and the secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day hospital readmission. We selected 69,624 eligible patients with a mean (standard deviation) age of 65.0 (10.2) years old. Matching between MAG and SAG generated 16,882 pairs of patients < 70 years old and 10,921 pairs of patients ≥ 70 years old. At a median [interquartile range] follow-up duration of 5.9 [3.2-9.6] years, MAG was associated with significantly reduced mortality compared to SAG (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.78; p < 0.001) in the younger subgroup as well as the elderly subgroup (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88; p < 0.001). In conclusion, MAG offers a survival benefit over SAG, in both younger and elderly patients.

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.

Long-term survival of single versus bilateral internal mammary artery grafting in patients under 70

OBJECTIVES

As definitive data from randomized controlled trials comparing the effect on long-term survival of using single internal mammary artery (SIMA) or bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting are not yet available, observational studies allow for long-term follow-up in large and representative populations, which might complement the information potentially derived from randomized trials. To compare long-term survival in patients under 70 years of age undergoing SIMA or BIMA grafting.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 3384 consecutive patients under 70 years undergoing primary isolated coronary artery bypass grafting, performed from 2000 to 2015, in a Portuguese level III Hospital. We identified 2176 and 1208 patients from the study population who underwent SIMA and BIMA grafting, respectively. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 10 years. We employed inverse probability weighting to restrict confounding by indication.

RESULTS

The mean age of the study population was 59.4 (± 7.6) years, and 567 (16.8%) were females. Inverse probability weighting was effective in eliminating differences in all significant baseline characteristics. Follow-up was 99.88% complete. The median follow-up time was 12.82 (interquartile range, 9.65, 16.74) years: the primary end point of all-cause mortality at 10 years occurred in 463 patients (21.3%) and 166 (13.7%) in the SIMA and BIMA grafting groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.92; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Bilateral internal mammary grafting is associated with lower long-term mortality than single internal mammary grafting. Moreover, this survival benefit comes at no increased perioperative morbidity or mortality cost.

Meta-Analysis of Bilateral Versus Single Internal Thoracic Artery Grafting in Patients ≥70 Years of Age

The optimal choice of graft material in patients ≥70 years of age undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting remains unknown. A systematic review of literature was conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for original publications that compared bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting with single internal thoracic artery grafting in patients ≥70 years of age. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators and meta-analyzed with the use of random effects. A total of 10 studies, including 11,185 patients, met the inclusion criteria. No differences in early mortality and morbidity, with the exemption of sternal wound complications which were more frequently observed in the BITA group (odds ratio 1.72, 95% 1.00 to 2.96 confidence interval [CI], p = 0.05; propensity score-matched population odds ratio 1.58, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.29, p = 0.02), were observed. Overall survival was superior in the overall patient population (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86, p <0.001), after applying a blanking period of 3 months to the overall patient population (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.92, p = 0.005) as well as in the matched population (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.89, p = 0.002); in all cases, a benefit was readily seen within a few years after surgery. The difference in freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events failed to reach statistical significance (overall patient population HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.13, p = 0.10; matched population HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.16, p = 0.11). In conclusion, BITA grafting can be safely performed in patients ≥70 years of age as late clinical benefits are expected to manifest themselves readily within a few years after surgery.

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.

Up-to-Date, Skeletonized or Pedicle Bilateral Internal Mammary Artery; Does It Matter?

PURPOSE

In this article, we reported on the up-to-date literature regarding skeletonized bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) flow and the effect on sternal perfusion. We also reviewed the pros and cons of the skeletonization technique versus the conventional pedicle technique for harvesting the BIMA.

METHODS

We performed an up-to-date review using the PubMed database, with a specific focus on the contemporary published literature.

RESULTS

BIMA skeletonization can preserve the sternal microcirculation, minimize tissue damage, and maintain blood supply to the chest wall at the tissue level. This effect is also apparent in diabetics. Deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) rates are significantly less with skeletonization versus the conventional pedicle technique and are comparable to single internal mammary artery harvesting.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary large-scale studies demonstrate that skeletonization of the BIMA increases conduit length, provides superior flow, reduces the incidence of DSWIs, and improves late survival. Hopefully, this review will increase awareness of the compelling evidence in favor of using skeletonized internal mammary arteries and stimulate increased uptake of BIMA revascularization surgery.

Patients Submitted to Myocardial Revascularization with the Use of Bilateral Internal Thoracic Arteries: Diabetics vs. Non-Diabetics

INTRODUCTION

Use of bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) as graft in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is controversial because it is related to higher in-hospital mortality, incidence of sternal wound-related infection, and an increase in surgical time. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate in-hospital mortality and mortality within 30 days from discharge. The secondary objective is to evaluate the occurrence of deep sternal wound infection in a 90-day follow-up.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of the medical records of 152 patients undergoing elective CABG with the use of BITA and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). These patients were divided into two groups, diabetics and non-diabetics. Patients with acute myocardial infarction and concomitant valvular disease were not included in the sample.

RESULTS

Preoperative characteristics did not show significant differences between the groups, which allowed a comparative analysis. The variables electrocardiography time and aortic clamping time were higher in the diabetic group, with a significant statistical difference (P<0.0001). In-hospital mortality occurred in three patients, and there was no mortality up to 30 days in both groups. There was no significant difference in the primary end point between groups (P=0.56). Deep sternal wound infection was present in only one patient and showed no significant difference in the secondary outcome between groups (P=0.40).

CONCLUSION

We did not observe a higher mortality and occurrence of deep sternal wound infection with the use of BITA in diabetic patients compared to non-diabetics, even with greater CPB and aortic clamping times in diabetics.

Survival effect of radial artery usage in addition to bilateral internal thoracic arterial grafting: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Little evidence shows whether the radial artery (RA) as third arterial graft provides superior outcomes compared with the use of the bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) and saphenous vein (SV) graft in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. A meta-analysis of propensity score-matched observational studies that compared the long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting with the use of BITA and the RA (BITA + RA) versus BITA and SV (BITA + SV) was performed.

METHODS

Electronic databases from January 2000 to November 2020 were screened. Studies that reported long-term mortality were analyzed. The primary outcome was long-term overall mortality. A secondary end point was in-hospital/30-day mortality. Pooled hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for survival and time-to-event analysis according to a random effect model. Differences were expressed as odds ratio with 95% CI for in-hospital/30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Six propensity score-matched studies that reported on 2500 matched patients (BITA + RA: 1250; BITA + SV: 1250) were identified for comparison. The use of BITA + RA was not statistically associated with early mortality (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.36-2.28; P = .83). The mean follow-up time ranged from 7.5 to 12 years. The pooled analysis of long-term survival revealed a significant difference between the 2 groups favoring BITA + RA treatment (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50-0.91; P = .031). The survival rate for BITA + RA versus BITA + SV at 5, 10, and 15 years were: 96.2% versus 94.8%, 88.9% versus 87.4%, and 83% versus 77.9%, respectively (log rank test, P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with coronary artery bypass grafting, BITA + RA usage is not associated with higher rates of operative risk and is associated with superior long-term overall survival.

Real-world comparison of direct-acting oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: No clear clinical guidelines exist on anticoagulant use for chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. We compared the efficacy and safety of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. vitamin K antagonists (VKA) in patients with CKD by pooling data from real-world observational studies.Research design & methods: This systematic review searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases and pooled multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of outcomes.Results: Fifteen studies were included. Our results indicated a small but significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality (p = 0.01), stroke or systemic embolism (p = 0.03), and major bleeding (p = 0.01) with DOAC as compared to VKA. In subgroup analysis based on the severity of CKD, no difference in the risk of stroke or systemic embolism was noted in any subgroups. The risk of mortality was reduced only in patients with moderate-severe or severe CKD and the risk of major bleeding was reduced only in patients with moderate-severe or moderate CKD.Conclusion: DOACs are associated with only a modest reduction in stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, and mortality when compared to VKA in CKD patients. Reduction in mortality and major bleeding with DOAC may only be seen in moderate-to-severe CKD patients.

Total Arterial Coronary Bypass Graft Surgery is Associated with Better Long-Term Survival in Patients with Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: a Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of total arterial revascularization (TAR) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains a controversial issue. This study sought to evaluate whether there is any difference on the long-term results of TAR and non-TAR CABG patients.

METHODS

The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL/CCTR), Clinical Trials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies published by October 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies with propensity score matching comparing TAR versus non-TAR CABG were included. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. The current barriers to implementation of TAR in clinical practice and measures that can be used to optimize outcomes were reviewed.

RESULTS

Fourteen publications (from 2012 to 2020) involving a total of 22,746 patients (TAR: 8,941 patients; non-TAR: 13,805 patients) were included. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for long-term mortality (over 10 years) was lower in the TAR group than in the non-TAR group (random effect model: HR 0.676, 95% confidence interval 0.586-0.779, P<0.001). There was evidence of low heterogeneity of treatment effect among the studies for mortality, and none of the studies had a particular impact on the summary result. The result was not influenced by age, sex, or comorbidities. We identified low risk of publication bias related to this outcome.

CONCLUSION

This review found that TAR presents the best long-term results in patients who undergo CABG. Given that many patients are likely to benefit from TAR, its use should be encouraged.

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.

Quality Improvement: Arterial Grafting Redux, 2010:2019

BACKGROUND

The evidence base favoring utilization of multiple arterial conduits in coronary artery bypass grafting has strengthened in recent years. Nevertheless, utilization of arterial conduits in the US lags behind that of many European peers. We describe a statewide collaborative based approach to improving utilization.

METHODS

Four metrics of arterial revascularization were devised. These were displayed and discussed at quarterly statewide quality collaborative meetings from January 2016 onwards, integrated with an educational program regarding attendant benefits. We undertook retrospective review of isolated coronary artery bypass grafting statewide from 2012-2019 to assess impact.

RESULTS

A total of 38,523 cases met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Statewide incidence of multiple arterial grafting increased from 7.4% at baseline to 21.7% in 2019 (P < .001), implementation across hospitals varied widely, ranging from 67.6% to 0.0%. Utilization of total arterial revascularization increased 1.9% to 4.4% (P < .001) between time frames. Utilization of both radial artery and bilateral internal thoracic artery conduit increased significantly from 5.3% to 13.2% (P < .001) and 2.1% to 8.5% (P < .001), respectively; radial artery utilization was significantly higher than bilateral internal thoracic artery for each year (P < .001 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Our statewide quality improvement initiative improved rates of utilization of multiple arterial grafting by all metrics. Barriers to current utilization were identified to guide future quality improvement efforts. This reproducible approach is readily transferable to improve quality of care in other domains and geographical areas.

Meta-analyzing count events over varying durations using the piecewise Poisson model: The case for poststroke seizures

Meta-analyzing count data can be challenging when follow-up time varies across studies. Simply pooling aggregate data over time-periods would result in biased estimates, which may erroneously inform clinical decision-making. In this study, we exploit the convolution property of the Poisson distribution to develop a likelihood for observed cumulative counts over varying follow-up periods, where different Poisson distributions are used to represent the data generating processes for the latent counts in pre-defined successive intervals of follow-up. We illustrate this approach using an example of poststroke seizures, a case in which risk may change over time, and mimic its survival duration with time-varying hazard. Data were extracted from observational studies (1997-2016) reporting poststroke seizures over a maximum of 10 years of follow-up. Three clinically meaningful follow-up time intervals were considered: 0 to 7 days, 8 to 365 days, and 1 to 10 years poststroke. External validation was performed using claims data. Results suggest the incidence rate of seizures was 0.0452 (95% confidence interval: 0.0429, 0.0475), 0.0001 (0, 0.016), and 0.0647 (0.0441, 0.0941) for the three time intervals, respectively, indicating that the risk of seizures changes over time poststroke. We found that the model performed well against the incidence rate of seizures among actual retrospective cohort from claims data. The piecewise Poisson model presents a flexible way to meta-analyze count data over time and mimic survival curves. The results of the piecewise Poisson model are readily interpretable and may spur meaningful clinical action. The method may also be applied to other diseases. HIGHLIGHTS: It is challenging to perform a meta-analysis when follow-up time varies across studies. Ideally, outcomes over different time-periods should be pooled with individual patient-level data (IPD). A new model was developed to meta-analyze count data over time using aggregate-level data from previous published studies. The piecewise Poisson model could be a useful tool to estimate time-vary hazards given available data, and mimic survival curves over time which would be readily interpretable.

What is the best graft to supplement the bilateral internal thoracic artery to the left coronary system? A meta-analysis

This meta-analysis was designed to assess the effect of the use of arterial conduits (ACs) versus great saphenous vein (GSV) grafts as a third conduit for revascularization of the right coronary artery system, in addition to the bilateral internal mammary artery on the left coronary artery. PubMed and OVID's version of MEDLINE were searched from January 2000 to September 2017 for relevant publications. The primary end point was the long-term mortality rate. The secondary end point was early mortality, defined as either in-hospital death or death within 30 days after the operation. Meta-regression was used to evaluate the effect of female gender and diabetes on the primary and secondary outcomes. A total of 10 studies (4121 patients) were selected for the systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ACs (1619) versus the GSV (2502), 6 (2548) comparing the GSV (2548) versus the right gastroepiploic artery (1023) and 5 comparing the GSV (2548) versus the radial artery (596). The pooled analysis did not show any difference between ACs and the GSV in terms of long-term mortality rates [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.56-1.01; P = 0.061]. When using the leave-one-out analysis, after the exclusion of 1 study (outlier), ACs were significantly associated with lower long-term mortality rates (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.54-0.83; P < 0.001). When the results were stratified according to the type of study, no differences with regard to long-term results were found between ACs and the GSV, either in the pooled analysis of the 6 propensity score-matched studies (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.43-1.08; P = 0.107) or in the pooled analysis of the 4 non-propensity score-matched studies (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.62-1.23; P = 0.438). Again, when the outlier was excluded, the pooled analysis of the propensity score-matched studies confirmed that ACs were associated with lower long-term mortality rates (HR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.43-0.80; P < 0.001). Comparisons between the GSV and either the right gastroepiploic artery or the radial artery showed similar results. No publication bias was found. This meta-analysis is the first to compare the GSV to the radial artery and the right gastroepiploic artery for right coronary artery grafting in patients receiving a bilateral internal mammary artery to left coronary artery. The choice of a third AC seems to be preferable in order to achieve better long-term survival.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Multiple Arterial Grafts Versus Single Arterial Graft for Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting

Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown conflicting outcomes for multiple arterial graft (MAG) coronary artery bypass graft surgery compared with single arterial grafts (SAGs). The predominant evidence supporting the use of MAGs is observational. The aim of this meta-analysis of RCTs is to compare outcomes following MAG and SAG. We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing MAG versus SAG. The clinical outcomes studied were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, stroke, sternal wound complications, and major bleeding. We used hazard ratio (HR), relative risk (RR), and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for measuring outcomes. Ten RCTs (6392 patients) were included. The average follow-up in the studies was 4.2 years. The average age of the patients in the studies ranged from 56.3 years to 74.6. No significant difference was seen between MAG and SAG groups for all-cause mortality (11.8% vs 12.7%, HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09, p 0.36), cardiac mortality (4.1% vs 4.5%, HR 0.96 95% CI 0.74 to 1.26, p 0.77), MI (3.5% vs 5.1%, HR 0.87 95% CI 0.67 to 1.12, p 0.28), and major bleeding (3.3% vs 4.9%, RR 0.85 95% CI 0.64 to 1.13, p 0.26). Repeat revascularization in MAG showed a lower RR than SAG when one of the confounding studies was excluded (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.99, p 0.04). The incidence of stroke was lower in MAG than SAG (2.9% vs 3.9%, RR 0.74 95% CI 0.56 to 0.98, p 0.03). MAG had higher incidence of sternal wound complications than SAG (2.9% vs 1.7%, RR 1.75 95% CI 1.19 to 2.55, p 0.004). In conclusion, MAG does not have a survival advantage compared with SAG but is better in revascularization and risk of stroke. This benefit may be set off by a higher incidence of sternal wound complications in MAG.

Wound Infection after CABG Using Internal Mammary Artery Grafts: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

 Internal mammary arteries show better long-term patency rates than venous grafts. The use of both mammary arteries is associated with a higher risk of sternal wound infections. This meta-analysis was designed to assess the incidence of a wound healing disorder after bilateral compared with single mammary artery bypass grafting. Compared with existing meta-analysis this paper includes more current literature and one randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

 A literature search was performed using PubMed and the Cochrane Library. The quality of the articles was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The odds ratio was used as a measure of the chance of developing a wound healing disorder after bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) surgery. Meta-analyses were performed for different subgroups.

RESULTS

 Twenty studies met the quality criteria, including one randomized controlled trial. The use of both mammary arteries significantly increased the risk of superficial (odds ratio [OR] 1.72) and deep (OR 1.75) wound healing disorder in the total population (OR 1.80) as well as in the diabetic subgroup (OR 1.38) and with both preparation techniques. The increased risk with BIMA grafting was present independently of the preparation technique (pedicled: OR 1.89, skeletonized: OR 1.37).

CONCLUSION

 Bilateral internal mammary artery grafting, especially in high-risk and diabetic patients, is associated with an increased risk of wound healing impairment. Skeletonized preparation does not eliminate the elevated wound healing disorder risk after BIMA use.

Sex differences after coronary artery bypass grafting with a second arterial conduit

OBJECTIVES

Double arterial conduit use during coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with single arterial conduits in the general population. However, the sex-specific outcomes of this strategy remain unknown and are needed to inform sex-specific revascularization guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of all Ontarians who underwent primary isolated coronary artery bypass grafting with single arterial conduits or double arterial conduits between October 2008 and September 2017. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, heart failure hospitalization, repeat revascularization, and stroke. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to account for group imbalances.

RESULTS

A total of 9135 women and 36,748 men underwent coronary artery bypass grafting. At 30 days, there was no between-group difference in mortality or major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in men. However, among women, a double arterial conduit was associated with an increased rate of 30-day death (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.79) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.51). The risk of medium-term mortality with double arterial conduits was less in men (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-0.92) and women (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.94), as was the medium-term risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.94) [men]; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.97) [women]). The incremental improvement in 9-year survival was 4.0% in women with a double arterial conduit and 0.9% in men.

CONCLUSIONS

Double arterial conduit is associated with better medium-term survival and cardiovascular outcomes in both sexes. Double arterial conduits are associated with increased perioperative risk in women, but the medium-term benefit is greater than in men.

Fertility sparing surgery vs radical surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis of overall survival and disease-free survival

Background

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare overall survival and disease-free survival after fertility sparing surgery (FSS) vs radical surgery in stage 1 epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC).

Methods

A systematic literature search of PubMed, BioMed Central, Scopus, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google scholar was carried out. Databases were searched for English language studies from inception to 1st November 2019. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) were extracted and pooled for a meta-analysis. Meta-regression was performed for baseline patient characteristics.

Results

Eight observational studies compared 2223 patients undergoing FSS with 5809 patients undergoing radical surgery. Overall survival was reported from all eight studies. The pooled HR was non-significant (HR, 1.03; 95%CI, 0.80–1.31; p = 0.84) denoting no difference in overall survival between FSS and radical surgery. Data on disease-free survival was available from five studies. Our analysis indicated no difference in disease-free survival between EOC patients undergoing FSS or radical surgery (HR, 1.07; 95%CI, 0.73–1.58; p = 0.72). On meta-regression, there was no a statistically significant effect of cancer stage, grade and histology on the pooled HR.

Conclusion

On the basis of currently available observational studies there seems to be no difference in overall survival and disease-free survival with either surgical techniques for stage 1 EOC patients. Disease stage, tumor grade and histology does not appear to influence outcomes. Further homogenous studies shall improve the quality of evidence on this debatable subject.

Radial Artery Versus Right Internal Thoracic Artery Versus Saphenous Vein as the Second Conduit for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes

Background

There remains uncertainty regarding the second‐best conduit after the internal thoracic artery in coronary artery bypass grafting. Few studies directly compared the clinical results of the radial artery (RA), right internal thoracic artery (RITA), and saphenous vein (SV). No network meta‐analysis has compared these 3 strategies.

Methods and Results

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for adjusted observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing the RA, SV, and/or RITA as the second conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting. The primary end point was all‐cause long‐term mortality. Secondary end points were operative mortality, perioperative stroke, perioperative myocardial infarction, and deep sternal wound infection (DSWI). Pairwise and network meta‐analyses were performed. A total of 149 902 patients (4 randomized, 31 observational studies) were included (RA, 16 201, SV, 112 018, RITA, 21 683). At NMA, the use of SV was associated with higher long‐term mortality compared with the RA (incidence rate ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.12–1.34) and RITA (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.17–1.35). The risk of DSWI for SV was similar to RA but lower than RITA (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55–0.91). There were no differences for any outcome between RITA and RA, although DSWI trended higher with RITA (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.92–2.1). The risk of DSWI in bilateral internal thoracic artery studies was higher when the skeletonization technique was not used.

Conclusions

The use of the RA or the RITA is associated with a similar and statistically significant long‐term clinical benefit compared with the SV. There are no differences in operative risk or complications between the 2 arterial conduits, but DSWI remains a concern with bilateral ITA when skeletonization is not used.

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.

Multiple Arterial Grafting Is Associated With Better Outcomes for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Patients

BACKGROUND

Observational studies have shown better survival in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with 2 arterial grafts compared with 1. However, whether a third arterial graft is associated with incremental benefit remains uncertain. We sought to analyze the outcomes of 3 versus 2 arterial grafts during CABG. As a secondary objective, we compared CABG with 2 or 3 arterial grafts (multiple arterial grafts [MAG]) with CABG using a single arterial graft (SAG).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort analyses of all patients undergoing primary isolated CABG in Ontario, Canada, from October 2008 to March 2016. Propensity score matching was performed between patients with 3 arterial grafts (3Art group) versus 2 (2Art group). The primary outcome was time to first event of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Additional analyses were performed to evaluate the association between MAG versus SAG and long-term outcomes using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Fifty thousand, two hundred thirty patients underwent isolated CABG during our study period; 3044 (6.1%) and 8253 (16.4%) patients had 3 and 2 arterial grafts, respectively, resulting in 2789 propensity score matching pairs for the primary analyses. Mean and maximum follow-up was 4.2 and 8.5 years, respectively. Radial artery grafting was more common in the 3Art versus 2Art group (79.3% versus 65.6%, P<0.01). In-hospital outcomes were not significantly different, including death (3Art 0.8% versus 2Art 0.5%, P=0.26). Up to 8 years, there were no differences in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (3Art 27%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 24% to 30% versus 2Art 25%, 95% CI, 22% to 28%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.08, 95% CI, 0.94-1.25), death (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.87-1.51), stroke (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.95-2.06), or repeat revascularization (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.32). When evaluating MAG versus SAG, 8629 patient pairs were formed using propensity score matching. At 8 years, cumulative incidences of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (HR, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.77-0.88), survival (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.88), repeat revascularization (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90), and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97) were superior in the MAG group.

CONCLUSIONS

CABG with 3 arterial grafts was not associated with increased in-hospital death nor with better clinical outcomes at 8-year follow-up, compared with CABG with 2 arterial grafts. MAG was associated with superior outcomes compared with SAG.

Sternal wound closure in the current era: the need of a tailored approach

OBJECTIVE

Median sternotomy remains the most common access to perform cardiac surgery procedures. However, the experience of the operating surgeon remains a crucial factor during sternal closure to avoid potential complications related to poor sternal healing, such as mediastinitis. Considering the lack of major randomized controlled trials and the heterogeneity of the current literature, this narrative review aims to summarize the different techniques and approaches to sternal closure with the aim to investigate their reflections into clinical outcomes and to inform the choice on the most effective closure method after median sternotomy.

METHODS

A literature search through PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, and Web of Science from its inception up to April 2019 using the following search keywords in various combinations: sternal, sternotomy, mediastinitis, deep sternal wound infection, cardiac surgery, closure.

RESULTS

Single wire fixation methods, at present, seems the most useful method to perform sternal closure in routine patients, although patients with a fragile sternum might benefit more from a figure-of-eight technique. In high-risk patients (e.g. chronic pulmonary disease, obesity, bilateral internal mammary artery harvesting, diabetes, off-midline sternotomy), rigid plate fixation is currently the most effective method, if available; alternatively, weave techniques could be used.

CONCLUSION

The choice among the sternal closure techniques should be mainly inspired and tailored on the patient's characteristics, and correct judgement and experience play a pivotal role. A decisional algorithm has been proposed as an attempt to overcome the absence of specific guidelines and to guide the operative approach. This operative approach might be used also in non-cardiac procedure in which median sternotomy is required, such as in case of thoracic surgery.

Multiarterial coronary artery bypass grafting: is the radial artery fulfilling the unkept promise of the right internal thoracic artery?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The debate on the second best conduit for CABG is still intense. In this review, we discuss the role of the radial artery and the right internal thoracic artery (RITA) compared with saphenous vein grafts (SVG).

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent RADIAL STUDY has been the first evidence based on randomized trials of a clinical benefit using a second arterial graft in CABG.On the other hand, the definitive 10-year results of the ART trial failed to show a clinical advantage associated with the use of bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA). A thorough and contextualized analysis of this and other studies, however, may offer a different perspective.

SUMMARY

Arterial conduits in CABG have shown better patency rates than SVG. Whether this leads to better clinical outcomes is still debated. In this setting, the radial artery and the RITA seem to offer a similar advantage, although with different indications and contraindications.

Immediate results of bypass grafting of the territory of the right coronary artery using the 'Penza Coronary Technology'

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is known to be an effective method of treatment for multivessel obstructive coronary disease with low rates of reintervention and excellent long-term survival and freedom from angina. Graft patency lies at the heart of its procedural success and durability, which in its turn largely depends on the appropriate choice of the conduit, as well as the target coronary artery (CA). It should be mentioned that patency of one and the same conduit used for bypass grafting of the territory of either the left or right coronary artery (LCA and RCA, respectively) may differ, which is probably determined by differences in physiology, size, territory of runoff, and local flow characteristics between different coronary targets. Previous reports have supported the use of bilateral internal thoracic arteries to revascularize the left coronary circulation. If this becomes standardized practice, the optimal conduit for the right coronary system remains to be established. Proposed in the present article is a variant of bypass grafting of the RCA territory using a composite I-graft formed from the proximal portion of the right internal thoracic artery (ITA) in situ and the great saphenous vein (GSV) harvested by the 'no-touch' technique. This technique is part of a CABG schematic algorithm worked out in our Clinic and called the 'Penza Coronary Technology'.