Meta-Analysis Comparing Multiple Arterial Grafts Versus Single Arterial Graft for Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting (original) (raw)
Related papers
Circulation
BACKGROUND: Observational studies have shown better survival in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with 2 arterial grafts compared with 1. However, whether a third arterial graft is associated with incremental benefit remains uncertain. We sought to analyze the outcomes of 3 versus 2 arterial grafts during CABG. As a secondary objective, we compared CABG with 2 or 3 arterial grafts (multiple arterial grafts [MAG]) with CABG using a single arterial graft (SAG). METHODS: Retrospective cohort analyses of all patients undergoing primary isolated CABG in Ontario, Canada, from October 2008 to March 2016. Propensity score matching was performed between patients with 3 arterial grafts (3Art group) versus 2 (2Art group). The primary outcome was time to first event of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Additional analyses were performed to evaluate the association between MAG versus SAG and long-term outcomes using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Fifty thousand, two hundred thirty patients underwent isolated CABG during our study period; 3044 (6.1%) and 8253 (16.4%) patients had 3 and 2 arterial grafts, respectively, resulting in 2789 propensity score matching pairs for the primary analyses. Mean and maximum follow-up was 4.2 and 8.5 years, respectively. Radial artery grafting was more common in the 3Art versus 2Art group (79.3% versus 65.6%, P<0.01). In-hospital outcomes were not significantly different, including death (3Art 0.8% versus 2Art 0.5%, P=0.26). Up to 8 years, there were no differences in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (3Art 27%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 24% to 30% versus 2Art 25%, 95% CI, 22% to 28%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.
General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Objective We reviewed the available literature on patients with coronary artery disease undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with either single (SAG) or multiple arterial grafting (MAG). Methods Original research studies that evaluated the long-term survival of MAG versus SAG were identified, from 1995 to 2022. The median overall survival (OS) and event-free OS were the primary endpoints. Comparison of median OS between the right internal mammary artery (RIMA) and radial artery (RA) as a second arterial conduit was the secondary endpoint. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding patients older than 70 years, with diabetes mellitus, and females. A sensitivity analysis was performed with the leave-one-out method. Results Forty-four studies were included in the qualitative and thirty-nine in the quantitative synthesis. After pooling data from 180 to 459 patients, the MAG group demonstrated a higher OS (HR, 0.589; 95% CI, 0.58–0.60; p < 0.0001) and event-free ...
Cureus, 2019
The long-term patency of the grafts used during the coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is one of the most significant predictors of the clinical outcomes. The gold standard graft used during CABG with the best long-term patency rate and the better clinical outcomes is left internal thoracic artery (LITA) grafted to the left coronary artery (LCA). The controversy lies in choosing the second-best conduit for the non-left coronary artery (NLCA) with similar patency rate as LITA. This meta-analysis examines the long-term patency and clinical outcomes of all arterial grafts versus all venous grafts used during the CABG.
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 2017
The primary hypothesis of the ROMA trial is that in patients undergoing primary isolated non-emergent coronary artery bypass grafting, the use of 2 or more arterial grafts compared with a single arterial graft (SAG) is associated with a reduction in the composite outcome of death from any cause, any stroke, post-discharge myocardial infarction and/or repeat revascularization. The secondary hypothesis is that in these patients, the use of 2 or more arterial grafts compared with a SAG is associated with improved survival. The ROMA trial is a prospective, unblinded, randomized event-driven multicentre trial comprising at least 4300 subjects. Patients younger than 70 years with left main and/or multivessel disease will be randomized to a SAG or multiple arterial grafts to the left coronary system in a 1:1 fashion. Permuted block randomization stratified by the centre and the type of second arterial graft will be used. The primary outcome will be a composite of death from any cause, any stroke, post-discharge myocardial infarction and/or repeat revascularization. The secondary outcome will be all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome will be a composite of death from any cause, any stroke and any myocardial infarction. In all patients, 1 internal thoracic artery will be anastomosed to the left anterior descending coronary artery. For patients randomized to the SAG group, saphenous vein grafts will be used for all non-left anterior descending target vessels. For patients randomized to the multiple arterial graft group, the main target vessel of the lateral wall will be grafted with either a radial artery or a second internal thoracic artery. Additional grafts for the multiple arterial graft group can be saphenous veins or supplemental arterial conduits. To detect a 20% relative reduction in the primary outcome, with 90% power at 5% alpha and assuming a time-to-event analysis, the sample size must include 845 events (and 3650 patients). To detect a 20% relative reduction in the secondary outcome, with 80% power at 5% alpha, the sample size must include 631 events (and 3650 patients). To be conservative, the sample size will be set at 4300 patients. The primary outcome will be tested according to the intention-to-treat principle. The primary analysis will be a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with the treatment arm included as a covariate. If non-proportional hazards are observed, alternatives to Cox proportional hazards regression will be explored.
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2015
Objective: Despite various evidence supporting the advantages of multiple arterial grafting, inconsistencies in use of the procedure have resulted in high variability in the acceptance and practice of arterial grafting. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of an arterial versus venous second grafts on outcomes at 5-year follow-up in the coronary artery bypass grafting population from the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial. Methods: Patients (n ¼ 1419) with an arterial graft to the left anterior descending artery and !1 other graft were included and divided according to the second graft's type: 2nd-graft-arterial group (n ¼ 456) and 2nd-graft-venous group (n ¼ 963). Five-year outcomes were compared between subgroups. Event rates were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analyses. Propensity-score matching was used, to control for selection bias due to nonrandom group assignment in a 1:1 manner, resulting in 432 pairs with balanced baseline characteristics. Results: In unmatched groups, the 2nd-graft-arterial group had significantly lower rates of death (8.9% vs 13.1%; P ¼ .02), and composite safety endpoint of death/stroke/myocardial infarction (13.3% vs 18.7%; P ¼ .02), compared with the 2nd-graft-venous group. The rate of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events was similar between groups (22.9% vs 25.5%; P ¼ .30), because it includes the rate of repeat revascularization (12.6% in the 2nd-graft-arterial group vs 9.6% in the 2nd-graft-venous group; P ¼ .10). After propensity-score matching, no statistically significant differences were found between groups. Conclusions: This study reveals comparable 5-year outcomes with arterial and venous conduits as second grafts after an arterial graft anastomosed to the left anterior descending artery. This study demonstrates the multi-institutional variation in patient selection and operator technique with regard to arterial revascularization, although extended follow-up beyond 5 years is required to estimate its impact on long-term outcomes.
Arterial Grafts in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
2016
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the optimal surgical treatment for multi-vessel coronary artery disease. CABG operation has successful shortand intermediate-term results, but the long-term results are variable. The variability of results in long-term particularly depends on the nature of the vascular grafts used. Angiographic studies in long-term have showed that patency rates of arterial grafts were superior to patency rates of vein grafts. Numerous studies documented an incremental survival and events free benefit by utilizing increased number of arterial grafts during CABG. Long survival has improved by total arterial revascularization compared to using left internal thoracic artery (LITA) and saphenous vein grafts (85% to 90% at 10 years versus 75% to 80%, respectively). Total arterial revascularization patients also have lower rate of cardiac-related events including new myocardial infarction, recurrence of angina, severe arrhythmia, congestive heart failure requiring...
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 2007
Background: While it is believed that total arterial grafting (TAG) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) confers improved long-term outcomes when compared to conventional grafting with left internal mammary artery and saphenous vein grafts (LIMA+SVG), to date, this has not become the standard of care. In this study, we assessed the impact of TAG on medium-term outcomes after CABG.
Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, 2021
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 publication...