Expert systematic review on the choice of conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting: endorsed by the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)

Left ventricular recovery after total arterial coronary artery bypass grafting versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

We compared total arterial revascularization (TAR) versus conventional revascularization (CR) in terms of left ventricular function recovery in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 162 consecutive patients with multivessel CAD and reduced LVEF who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting at our institution between January 2013 and July 2022. We assessed left ventricular function by transthoracic echocardiography at admission, before discharge, and at follow-up of 3, 6, and 12 months, using LVEF, global longitudinal peak strain, end-diastolic volume index, and end-systolic volume index. We also evaluated mitral valve regurgitation and graft patency rate at 1 year.

RESULTS

The TAR group had a significantly higher increase in LVEF and global longitudinal peak strain, and a significantly lower decrease in end-diastolic volume index and end-systolic volume index than the CR group at 6 and 12 months after surgery. The TAR group also had a significantly lower degree of mitral valve regurgitation than the CR group at all-time points within 12 months after surgery. The TAR group had a significantly higher graft patency rate than the CR group at 12 months. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality or repeat revascularization between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

TAR was associated with better recovery of left ventricular function than CR in patients with multivessel CAD and reduced LVEF. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in this high-risk population.

The Best Second Arterial Conduit for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Individual Patient Data

Multiple arterial conduit revascularization in coronary bypass surgery is being advocated over the use of venous conduits. However, there is a critical gap regarding the optimal sequence of arterial conduit selection following the left internal thoracic artery. This study is the first individual patient data meta-analysis, which aimed to compare the right internal thoracic artery (RITA) versus the radial artery (RA) as a second-best arterial conduit. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL. A forward-backward citation check was performed to identify other relevant studies. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023455543). Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched cohort studies reporting long-term outcomes (>3 years) after coronary bypass surgery using the RITA versus RA as the second arterial conduit after left internal thoracic artery. Overall, long-term survival between the RITA and RA groups showed no significant difference. Landmark analyses demonstrated the superiority of RITA as a second arterial conduit at 1 [hazard ratio (HR): 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.99), P = 0.036], 2 [0.83 (95% CI, 0.72-0.96), P = 0.011], and 5 years [HR: 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68-0.95), P = 0.036] post-surgery. Freedom from major cardiovascular events was significantly higher using the RITA conduit [HR: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.59-0.89), P = 0.002]. This study supports the use of RITA, especially when used in a skeletonized in situ fashion, as a second choice following the left internal thoracic artery as it has the potential to enhance long-term survival and outcomes. Further research with standardized surgical techniques is warranted.

Less Invasive and Hybrid Surgical/Interventional Coronary Disease Management: The Future Is Now

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has evolved to become the criterion standard in elective revascularisation for coronary artery disease (CAD), particularly in patients with complex or multivessel CAD, left main involvement, diabetes mellitus, or left ventricular dysfunction. Despite the superiority of CABG in patients with the most advanced forms of CAD, a standard CABG operation, through a median sternotomy and with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass, carries well recognised challenges. In this article, we describe newer approaches, such as off-pump CABG, minimally invasive bypass grafting, robotic CABG, and hybrid coronary revascularisation, which we consider as necessary ways to minimise invasion, reduce recovery time, provide the benefits of arterial grafting to more patients, and offer alternatives to mitigate the adverse effects of conventional sternotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass.