Bilateral versus Single Internal-Thoracic-Artery Grafts

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.

Bilateral internal thoracic artery versus single internal thoracic artery: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched observational studies

The lack of benefit in terms of mid-term survival and the increase in the risk of sternal wound complications published in a recent randomized controlled trial have raised concerns about the use of bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) in myocardial revascularization surgery. For this reason, we decided to explore the current evidence available on the subject by carrying out a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies comparing BITA versus single internal thoracic artery (SITA). PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar were searched for propensity score-matched studies comparing BITA versus SITA. The generic inverse variance method was used to compute the combined hazard ratio (HR) of long-term mortality. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to compute the combined risk ratio of 30-day mortality, deep sternal wound infection and reoperation for bleeding. Forty-five BITA versus SITA matched populations were included. Meta-analysis showed a significant benefit in terms of long-term survival in favour of the BITA group [HR 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.86]. These results were consistent with those obtained by a pooled analysis of the matched populations comprising patients with diabetes (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.43-0.99). When compared with the use of SITA plus radial artery, BITA did not show any significant benefit in terms of long-term survival (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.69-1.07). No differences between BITA and SITA groups were detected in terms of 30-day mortality or in terms of reoperation for bleeding. Compared with the SITA group, patients in the BITA group had a significantly higher risk of deep sternal wound infection (risk ratio 1.66; 95% CI 1.41-1.95) even when the pooled analysis was limited to matched populations in which BITA was harvested according to the skeletonization technique (risk ratio 1.37; 95% CI 1.04-1.79). The use of BITA provided a long-term survival benefit compared with the use of SITA at the expense of a higher risk of sternal deep wound infection. The long-term survival advantage of BITA is undetectable when compared with SITA plus radial artery.

The effect on survival from the use of a saphenous vein graft during coronary bypass surgery: a large cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Saphenous vein graft (SVG) remains the predominant conduit used in coronary surgery. The internal mammary artery has higher later term patency and confers superior survival. Current debate focuses on the increased use of arterial conduits rather than eradication of venous conduits.

METHODS

Patient data extracted from the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons database from 2001-2013 were linked to the national death registry held by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare for all-cause mortality with censor date 7 October 2014. The dataset was divided according to use of SVG rather than the arterial conduit. Analyses of SVG ≥ 1 or SVG = 1 were compared to SVG = 0. Additionally, groups of 3, 4 or 5 grafts were subjected to multiple analyses testing the mortality hazard with increasing use of SVG. Propensity score matched analyses were conducted using 24 variables.

RESULTS

Of 51 113 primary coronary surgery patients, unmatched survival at up to 12.5 years was significantly lower for SVG ≥ 1, n = 33 359, mortality hazard ratio (HR) 1.24 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.30], P < 0.001; and for SVG = 1, mortality HR 1.19 (95% CI 1.12-1.26), P < 0.001. Similar results were present for the propensity score matched groups; SVG ≥ 1, n = 14 355 pairs, HR 1.22 (95% CI 1.15-1.30), P < 0.001; and for SVG = 1, n = 12 316 pairs, HR 1.22 (95% CI 1.14-1.30), P < 0.001. All matched analyses within restricted graft groups had increasing HR with increased number of SVG used.

CONCLUSIONS

Any use of SVGs is independently associated with reduced survival after coronary artery bypass surgery.

Long-term Outcomes of Multiple Arterial Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Population-Based Study of Patients in British Columbia, Canada

Importance

Although the long-term survival advantage of multiple arterial grafting (MAG) vs the standard use of left internal thoracic artery (LITA) supplemented by saphenous vein grafts (LITA+SVG) has been demonstrated in several observational studies, to our knowledge its safety and other long-term clinical benefits in a large, population-based cohort are unknown.

Objective

To compare the safety and long-term outcomes of MAG vs LITA+SVG among overall and selected subgroups of patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this population-based observational study, we included 20 076 adult patients with triple-vessel or left-main disease who underwent primary isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (MAG, n = 5580; LITA+SVG, n = 14 496) in the province of British Columbia, Canada, from January 2000 to December 2014, with follow-up to December 2015. We performed propensity-score analyses by weighting and matching and multivariable Cox regression to minimize treatment selection bias.

Exposures

Multiple arterial grafting or LITA+SVG.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Mortality, repeated revascularization, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke.

Results

Of 5580 participants who underwent MAG, 586 (11%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 60 (8.7) years. Of 14 496 participants who underwent LITA+SVG, 2803 (19%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 68 (8.9) years. The median (interquartile range) follow-up time was 9.1 (5.1-12.6) years and 8.1 (4.5-11.7) years for the groups receiving MAG and LITA+SVG, respectively. Compared with LITA+SVG, MAG was associated with reduced mortality rates (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87) and repeated revascularization rates (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.84) in 15-year follow-up and reduced incidences of myocardial infarction (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85) and heart failure (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98) in 7-year follow-up. The long-term benefits were coherent by all 3 statistical methods and persisted among patient subgroups with diabetes, obesity, moderately impaired ejection fraction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, peripheral vascular disease, or renal disease. Multiple arterial grafting was not associated with increased morbidity or mortality rates at 30 days overall or within patient subgroups.

Conclusions and Relevance

Compared with LITA+SVG, MAG is associated with reduced mortality, repeated revascularization, myocardial infarction, and heart failure among patients with multivessel disease who are undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting without increased mortality or other adverse events at 30 days. The long-term benefits consistently observed across multiple outcomes and subgroups support the consideration of MAG for a broader spectrum of patients who are undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting in routine practice.

State-of-the-Art Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Patient Selection, Graft Selection, and Optimizing Outcomes

Despite the progressive expansion of clinical indications for percutaneous coronary intervention and the increasingly high risk profile of referred patients, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the mainstay in multivessel disease, providing good long-term outcomes with low complication rates. Multiple arterial grafting, especially if associated with anaortic techniques, might provide the best longer-term outcomes. A surgical approach individualized to the patients' clinical and anatomic characteristics, and surgeon and team experience, are key to excellent outcomes. Current evidence regarding patient selection, indications, graft selection, and potential strategies to optimize outcomes in patients treated with CABG is summarized.

Bilateral internal thoracic arteries: what is the State of the ART?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide a broad overview of the current state of knowledge of coronary artery bypass grafting with bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA).

RECENT FINDINGS

There exists a large body of literature from mostly observational studies supporting the use of BITA in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting but selection bias is a major issue with nonrandomized data. The precise method of BITA use does not appear to impact graft patency nor clinical outcomes - in other words, BITA in any configuration appears to be protective. The major downside is the increased risk of sternal complications, which can be mitigated with sternal-sparring adjuncts. The 5-year interim results of the landmark Arterial Revascularization Trial comparing BITA versus single internal thoracic artery did not show a clinical benefit for BITA but the end-of-trial results are pending. Despite wide guideline support for BITA use, uptake in the surgical community remains low and this is likely because of technical and institutional barriers.

SUMMARY

The published literature thus far supports surgical revascularization with BITA and we eagerly await the 10-year Arterial Revascularization Trial results. The general consensus is that a greater proportion of surgical revascularization should be performed using BITA.

Bilateral Versus Single Internal Thoracic Artery Grafts

Purpose of Review

Several advances have been made in recent years to improve outcome for patients with coronary artery disease. One of the most debated topics regarding surgical treatment with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is graft selection. This review aims to present the current status and scientific evidence for bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting.

Recent Findings

Observational studies and pooled analyses suggest that BITA grafting is associated with improved survival. Early results from a large randomized controlled trial report safety and efficacy of the method. The improved survival might be amplified in select groups, but with an increase in sternal wound-related complications. The benefit of BITA grafts seems to remain to an approximate age of 69 years at surgery.

Summary

CABG with BITA grafts is likely associated with improved long-term survival at a cost of an increase in sternal wound infections. Ten-year results from the Arterial Revascularization Trial are expected in 2018, providing the best evidence regarding the method yet. Early results show it is a safe method in most patient categories considerable for CABG.