The RADial artery International ALliance (RADIAL) extended follow-up study: rationale and study protocol

How to build a multi-arterial coronary artery bypass programme: a stepwise approach

Observational evidence shows that the use of multiple arterial grafts (MAG) is associated with longer postoperative survival and improved clinical outcomes. The current European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Guidelines on myocardial revascularization recommend the use of MAG in appropriate patients. However, a significant volume-to-outcome relationship exists for MAG, and lack of sufficient experience is associated with increased operative risk. A stepwise approach to building experience with MAG allows successful implementation of this technique into routine coronary surgery practice.

Angiographic Patency of Coronary Artery Bypass Conduits: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Background Several randomized trials have compared the patency of coronary artery bypass conduits. All of the published studies, however, have performed pairwise comparisons and a comprehensive evaluation of the patency rates of all conduits has yet to be published. We set out to investigate the angiographic patency rates of all conduits used in coronary bypass surgery by performing a network meta-analysis of the current available randomized evidence. Methods and Results A systematic literature search was conducted for randomized controlled trials comparing the angiographic patency rate of the conventionally harvested saphenous vein, the no-touch saphenous vein, the radial artery (RA), the right internal thoracic artery, or the gastroepiploic artery. The primary outcome was graft occlusion. A total of 4160 studies were retrieved of which 14 were included with 3651 grafts analyzed. The weighted mean angiographic follow-up was 5.1 years. Compared with the conventionally harvested saphenous vein, both the RA (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.82) and the no-touch saphenous vein (IRR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39-0.78) were associated with lower graft occlusion. The RA ranked as the best conduit (rank score for RA 0.87 versus 0.85 for no-touch saphenous vein, 0.23 for right internal thoracic artery, 0.29 for gastroepiploic artery, and 0.25 for the conventionally harvested saphenous vein). Conclusions Compared with the conventionally harvested saphenous vein, only the RA and no-touch saphenous vein grafts are associated with significantly lower graft occlusion rates. The RA ranks as the best conduit. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42020164492.

Association of Radial Artery Graft vs Saphenous Vein Graft With Long-term Cardiovascular Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Observational studies have suggested that the use of radial artery grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting may improve clinical outcomes compared with the use of saphenous vein grafts, but this has not been confirmed in randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical outcomes between patients receiving radial artery vs saphenous vein grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting after long-term follow-up.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patient-level pooled analysis comparing radial artery vs saphenous vein graft in adult patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from 5 countries (Australia, Italy, Serbia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom), with enrollment from 1997 to 2009 and follow-up completed in 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to undergo either radial artery (n = 534) or saphenous vein (n = 502) grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization and the secondary outcome was a composite of death or myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

A total of 1036 patients were randomized (mean age, 66.6 years in the radial artery group vs 67.1 years in the saphenous vein group; 376 [70.4%] men in the radial artery group vs 351 [69.9%] in the saphenous vein group); 942 (90.9%) of the originally randomized patients completed 10 years of follow-up (510 in the radial artery group). At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 10 (10-11) years, the use of the radial artery, compared with the saphenous vein, in coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization (220 vs 237 total events; 41 vs 47 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.61-0.88]; P < .001) and of the composite of death or myocardial infarction (188 vs 193 total events; 35 vs 38 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63-0.94]; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this individual participant data meta-analysis with a median follow-up of 10 years, among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, the use of the radial artery compared with the saphenous vein was associated with a lower risk of a composite of cardiovascular outcomes.

Direct angiography demonstrates equal 8-12 years patency rates of radial artery and saphenous vein grafts

Objectives: The benefits of coronary artery bypass surgery depend on lasting graft patency. To aid rational graft selection, the relative long-term merits of radial artery and saphenous vein grafts need to be determined by a gold standard method and with minimal clinically driven selection bias. Methods: The patency rates of various conduits were determined by direct angiography in 76 patients from a cohort of 119 undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting 7.6-12.1 (mean 8.9) years before. Results: 14 out of 76 radial artery and 10 out of 61 saphenous vein grafts were occluded (rates 0.18 and 0.16, respectively). Conclusion: The high long-term patency rate of saphenous vein grafts does not support a preferential use of the radial artery as a coronary artery bypass conduit. Clinical registration number: ISRCTN23118170.