Total Arterial Revascularization with Radial Artery and Internal Thoracic Artery T-Grafts Is Associated with Superior Long-Term Survival in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Surgical Myocardial Revascularization with a Composite T-graft from the Left Internal Mammary Artery-Comparison of the Great Saphenous Vein with the Radial Artery

BACKGROUND

 Composite T-grafts between left internal mammary artery (LIMA) and radial artery (RA) are a common concept in complete arterial myocardial revascularization. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the use of the great saphenous vein (SV) instead of RA leads to comparably good results in terms of outcome in this context.

METHODS

 Patients who underwent myocardial revascularization with a T-graft using RA or a segment of SV to the right coronary artery or circumflex artery between the beginning of 2014 and the end of 2019 at the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel were included. To minimize surgical variation, only patients were observed by a single senior surgeon in the department. Exclusion criteria were previous cardiac surgery, preoperative extracorporeal circulatory support, off-pump surgery, additional aortocoronary bypasses, and cardiac combination procedures.

RESULTS

 A total of 115 patients were studied. In 55 patients, the T-graft was placed between the LIMA and SV, and in 60 patients, the T-graft was placed between the LIMA and RA. Patients in the SV group were older (70.6 ± 7.8 vs. 58.5 ± 10.0 years; p < 0.001), suffered more frequently from non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (12.7 vs. 1.7%; p = 0.027), arterial hypertension (83.6 vs. 61.7%; p = 0.009), and atrial fibrillation (18.2 vs. 1.7%; p = 0.003). They were less likely to be active smokers (16.4 vs. 38.3%; p = 0.009) and less likely to have a history of variceal surgery (0 vs. 15.0%; p = 0.003). Calcification of the ascending aorta was also found more frequently in the saphenous group (18.2 vs. 3.3%, p = 0.009). Operative times and number of distal anastomoses did not differ significantly between the two groups. Postoperative deliriums (16.7 vs. 5.0%; p = 0.043) were observed more frequently in venous patients. Wound healing disorders of the leg (11.1 vs. 0%; p = 0.011) did only occur in SV group and wound infections of the arm only in the RA group. Complete follow-up was achieved in 74.8% of cases. Median follow-up was 60.3 (39.6; 73.2) months. Serious adverse cardiac-cerebral events (19.0 vs. 22.7%; p = 0.675) and mortality (14.5 vs. 6.7%; p = 0.167) did not differ significantly between the groups at follow-up. Myocardial infarction (0 vs. 2.5%; p = 1.000) and stroke (0 vs. 7.5%; p = 0.245) were observed exclusively in RA group. Percutaneous coronary intervention was required in single patients of RA group (0 vs. 15.0%; p = 0.028). No patient from either group underwent repeat coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The patients of SV group had angiographically competent grafts and open anastomoses. Graft failure was noted in a single patient in RA group, in which case both grafts and native coronary vessels were stented. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant survival disadvantage for SV group compared with RA group.

CONCLUSION

 CABG with a composite T-graft between LIMA and a segment of SV may be comparable to bypass surgery with a composite T-graft between LIMA and RA. This might be true in terms of morbidity and mortality over an intermediate-term observation period. The results of our studies give rise to the hypothesis that the decision not to perform aortic bypass anastomosis may be more important than the choice of graft material.

Is it safe to perform total arterial grafting in elderly patients lacking vein grafts? A single surgeon comparison

OBJECTIVES

The results of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with total arterial revascularisation (TA-CABG) in elderly patients, who may have insufficient vein graft material for conventional CABG (CO-CABG), have not been fully established. We therefore sought to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients >70 years old undergoing CO-CABG and TA-CABG.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study analyzing all consecutive adult patients aged >70 years undergoing first-time CABG over the 15-year period from 2004 to 2020 under a single surgeon. Primary outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality, long-term mortality, and re-intervention rate. Secondary outcomes of interest included operative durations and the incidence of peri-operative complications.

RESULTS

There were 46 patients (age 76 ± 3 SD) in the TA-CABG group and 145 patients (age 76 ± 4 SD) in the CO-CABG group. Cardio-pulmonary bypass and cross-clamp durations were comparable between groups (p = .11 and p = .23, respectively). Stroke occurred in 1.0% undergoing CO-CABG compared to 0% in the TA-CABG group (p = .42). Hospital mortality was 3.0% with CO-CABG (EuroSCORE; mean [SD] 6.81 (5.81)) and 2.0% with TA-CABG (EuroSCORE; mean [SD] 6.38 (6.57)) (p = .93). On long-term follow-up, myocardial infarction occurred in 10.0% of CO-CABG patients compared to 4.0% of TA-CABG patients (p = .25). Re-intervention rates were 7% following CO-CABG, and 2% after TA-CABG (p = .23). There was no significant difference in long-term mortality between patients undergoing CO-CABG and TA-CABG (47% vs. 57%, p = .27). Long-term survival was comparable between grafting techniques (p = .27).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, re-intervention rate, hospital or long-term mortality between CO-CABG and TA-CABG. TA-CABG represents a safe and feasible alternative to CO-CABG in elderly patients offering good long-term outcomes.

Cardiac Surgery 2020 Reviewed

In 2020, nearly 30,000 published references appeared in the PubMed for the search term "cardiac surgery." While SARS-CoV-2 affected the number of surgical procedures, it did not affect outcomes reporting. Using the PRISMA approach, we selected relevant publications and prepared a results-oriented summary. We reviewed primarily the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with interventional alternatives. The coronary field started with a discussion on trial data value and their interpretation. Registry comparisons of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention confirmed outcomes for severe coronary artery disease and advanced comorbidities with CABG. Multiple arterial grafting was best. In aortic valve surgery, meta-analyses of randomized trials report that transcatheter aortic valve implantation may provide a short-term advantage but long-term survival may be better with classic aortic valve replacement (AVR). Minimally invasive AVR and decellularized homografts emerged as hopeful techniques. In mitral and tricuspid valve surgery, excellent perioperative and long-term outcomes were presented for structural mitral regurgitation. For both, coronary and valve surgery, outcomes are strongly dependent on surgeon expertise. Kidney disease increases perioperative risk, but does not limit the surgical treatment effect. Finally, a cursory look is thrown on aortic, transplant, and assist-device surgery with a glimpse into the current stand of xenotransplantation. As in recent years, this article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It does not expect to be complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. We aimed to provide up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.

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.

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.