Does the right internal thoracic artery or saphenous vein graft offer superior revascularization of the right coronary artery?

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus total arterial revascularization for the treatment of left main coronary artery disease

Background

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) has a similar clinical outcome to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in treating multivessel disease. However, the outcome of HCR in treating left main coronary artery (LM) disease is unclear. This study sought to compare the clinical outcome of HCR with total arterial revascularization (TAR) for treating LM disease.

Methods

Patients who underwent treatment for LM disease in our center between January 2009 and December 2019 were selected. Of these, 33 patients underwent HCR, and 70 patients underwent TAR. The primary efficacy outcome of this study was mid-term major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). The primary safety outcome was perioperative MACCE.

Results

The incidence of postoperative outcomes was comparable between the two groups after adjustment with inverse probability weighting (IPW) (P>0.05). The median follow-up time was 47 (interquartile range, 20 to 85) months. There was no significant difference in the incidence of all mid-term outcomes and the freedom of MACCE between the two groups after adjustment (P>0.05). The Cox proportional hazard model demonstrated that HCR was not a significant determinant for MACCE [hazard ratio (HR) =3.516, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.835 to 14.813].

Conclusions

HCR may be safe and effective for the treatment of LM disease compared with TAR.

Long-term graft patency after coronary artery bypass grafting: Effects of surgical technique

The aim of the current study was to identify surgical factors associated with long-term patency of grafts used in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The present study analyzed data from 127 patients who underwent CABG at our institute between 2000 and 2006 and presented for ambulatory examination and coronary computed tomography angiography evaluation of graft patency in 2016 (139.78±36.64 months post-CABG). The 127 patients received 340 grafts (2.68 grafts/patient) and 399 distal anastomoses (3.14 anastomoses/patient), 220 (55.14%) with arterial grafts and 179 (44.86%) with saphenous vein grafts. Graft patency varied according to coronary territory, proximal anastomosis type (in situ graft, composite graft, graft anastomosed to the ascending aorta), Y anastomosis angle (47.21° for patent arterial grafts vs. 56° for occluded), and distal anastomosis angle (in sequential anastomoses irrespective to graft type, 48.60° for patent side-to-side anastomosis vs. 53.97° for occluded, 65.12° for patent end-to-side anastomosis vs. 90.80° for occluded; in single end-to-side anastomosis of arterial grafts, 39.46° for patent and 44.94° for occluded). A single end-to-side anastomosis angle 60° or greater was associated with a 5.149 occlusion odds ratio (OR) (P<0.001) for arterial grafts. Venous grafts were not sensitive to single end-to-side anastomosis angle. In conclusion, a small anastomosis angle for proximal Y and distal anastomoses is associated with a higher long-term patency of the free graft. Radial artery grafts registered higher patency rates when anastomosed to the ascending aorta compared with composite grafting with the left internal thoracic artery, whereas in situ right internal thoracic artery (RITA) anastomosed to the right coronary territory is associated with a lower patency rate compared with free RITA used to revascularise the anterolateral or circumflex territory in composite grafting.

Does a third arterial conduit to the right coronary circulation improve survival?

BACKGROUND

The long-term benefits of a third arterial conduit to the right circulation in triple-vessel disease remain debatable. This retrospective, single-center, propensity-matched study investigates the impact of a third arterial conduit to the right circulation on early and intermediate survival after coronary artery bypass grafting.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected from 2004 to 2014 for all surgical revascularizations for triple-vessel disease with at least 2 arterial conduits to the left circulation and a third arterial or venous conduit to the right circulation. A total of 167 pairs were propensity matched to arterial versus venous third conduit to right circulation. Hazard functions were obtained with Cox multivariate regression and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared between the matched cohorts.

RESULTS

Extracardiac arteriopathy, logistic euroSCORE, and left main stem disease were significant predictors of adverse survival. A third arterial conduit to the right circulation was not a significant predictor of improved survival in multivariate analysis (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.34-1.55; P = .411). 30-day mortality was 0.6% in both groups. There was no significant difference in early or intermediate survival in the propensity-matched groups (venous vs arterial, 99.2% vs 99.2%; P = 1.000 at 1 year; 85.2% vs 88.8%; P = .248 at 5 years and 69.2% vs 88.8%; P = .297 at 7 years) CONCLUSIONS: The use of a third arterial versus a venous conduit to the right circulation does not improve early or intermediate survival up to 7 years in triple-vessel coronary artery disease in this study. Longer follow-up and larger cohorts may be needed for differences to emerge.

How does the right gastroepiploic artery compare with the saphenous vein for revascularization of the right coronary artery?

A best evidence topic was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'is the saphenous vein graft or right gastroepiploic artery a better conduit for revascularization of the right coronary artery?' One hundred and five articles were found using a designated search, of which 10 articles were found to represent the best available evidence to answer the clinical question. Of these 10 articles, two were reports of a randomized controlled trial and represented the highest level of evidence, whereas eight articles were retrospective observational studies. All were published between 2002 and 2012. Outcome measures varied considerably, but mostly included graft patency at varying periods of follow-up. The randomized evidence suggested that the saphenous vein had better early (6-month) and mid-term (3-year) graft patency than the right gastroepiploic artery when used for right coronary artery revascularization. The use of the saphenous vein was also found to be predictive of superior graft function using multivariate regression; however, a more recent propensity score analysis identified gastroepiploic-right coronary grafts to yield superior very long-term (>10 years) clinical outcomes. Overall, based on the best quality evidence and in view of technical limitations and flow characteristics of the right gastroepiploic artery, it appears that saphenous vein grafts may offer superior outcomes for revascularization of the right coronary artery in most cases, and should be preferentially used.