Project description:PurposeIt is unclear if a second or third arterial graft can improve clinical outcomes in coronary artery bypass graft surgery. We compared the outcomes of bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) plus radial artery (RA) grafting versus left internal thoracic artery (LITA) plus RA grafting after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.Materials and methodsBetween January 2009 and December 2020, a total of 3007 patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease who underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass were analyzed. Among them, 971 patients received total arterial grafting using LITA. We divided the patients into two groups [group A, BITA+RA grafting (n=227) and group B, LITA+RA grafting (n=744)], and compared the survival and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates between the two groups at 10 years.ResultsAfter risk adjustment with inverse probability treatment weighting methods, the freedom from all-cause mortality was 93.1% and 88.3% in groups A and B, respectively (p=0.140). The freedom from MACCE rates were 68.3% and 89.0%, respectively (p<0.0001). LITA plus RA grafting [hazard ratio (HR): 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05-2.37, p=0.025] and incomplete revascularization (HR 1.2, 95% CI: 0.70-2.15, p=0.046) were significant risk factors for MACCEs in multivariable Cox regression analysis.ConclusionThe rates of MACCEs were lower with LITA plus RA grafting than with BITA plus RA grafting in total arterial revascularization. Furthermore, complete revascularization improved long-term outcomes following total arterial grafting.
Project description:Observational studies suggest a survival advantage with bilateral single internal thoracic artery (BITA) versus single internal thoracic artery grafting for coronary surgery, whereas this conclusion is not supported by randomized trials. We hypothesized that this inconsistency is attributed to unmeasured confounders intrinsic to observational studies. To test our hypothesis, we performed a meta-analysis of the observational literature comparing BITA and single internal thoracic artery, deriving incident rate ratio for mortality at end of follow-up and at 1 year. We postulated that BITA would not affect 1-year survival based on the natural history of coronary artery bypass occlusion, so that a difference between groups at 1 year could not be attributed to the intervention. We searched MEDLINE and Pubmed to identify all observational studies comparing the outcome of BITA versus single internal thoracic artery. One-year and long-term mortality for BITA and single internal thoracic artery were compared in the propensity-score-matched (PSM) series, that is, the form of observational evidence less prone to confounders. Thirty-eight observational studies (174 205 total patients) were selected for final comparison. In the 12 propensity-score-matched series (34 019 patients), the mortality reduction for BITA was similar at 1 year and at the end of follow-up (incident rate ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.82 versus 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.85; P for subgroup difference=0.43). Unmeasured confounders, rather than biological superiority, may explain the survival advantage of BITA in observational series.
Project description:Bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting strategy is the current trend in coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary artery disease. Although better long-term outcomes have been shown, BITA grafting is underutilized as a main strategy for revascularization by most of the surgeons. The survey was conducted to ascertain the current usage and concerns of BITA grafting in India.Database of 856 Indian cardiac surgeons currently with predominantly adult practice was prepared and a questionnaire was sent about use of single and bilateral ITA grafts and BITA grafting strategy in different clinical scenarios.A total of 112 surgeons (13.08%) from 75 institutions responded and 92 surgeons (10.7%) completed the survey. Single ITA is used by 79% of surgeons in more than 90% of their patients. 31% and 29% of surgeons use BITA grafting in 5-10% and 11-98% of their patients respectively. 53% of surgeons avoided the usage of BITA grafting in patients with smoking, 35% of surgeons in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 58% of surgeons in obesity and 62% of surgeons in acute coronary syndrome, 36% of surgeons in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and 61% of surgeons in patients with poor coronary anatomy. The concerns for BITA usage are risk of deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) (40%), increased operative time (27%), unknown superiority (12%) and limited length of right ITA (5%).The usage of BITA grafting is restricted to 10% in India and main concerns are DSWI and increased operative time.
Project description:BackgroundTo compare postoperative outcomes in patients with left main coronary artery disease who underwent off-pump isolated coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel disease using either skeletonized bilateral or single internal thoracic artery (ITA).MethodsAmong 1583 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in our hospital between 2002 and 2022, 604 patients with left main coronary artery disease underwent single (n = 169) or bilateral (n = 435) ITA grafting. We compared postoperative outcomes between the two groups after adjusting preoperative characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting.ResultsAfter adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting method, the sum of weights was 599.74 in BITA group and 621.64 in SITA group. There was no significant difference in postoperative deep sternal wound infection (p = 0.227) and 30-day mortality (p = 0.612). Follow-up was completed in 98.7% (596/604) of the patients, and the mean follow-up duration was 6.7 years. At 10 years, the overall survival following bilateral versus single ITA grafting was 71.2% and 60.6%, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.040), and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was 63.3% and 46.3%, respectively (log-rank test, p = 0.008). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard models, bilateral ITA grafting was significantly associated with a lower risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.706, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.504-0.987; p = 0.042) and MACCE (HR: 0.671, 95% CI: 0.499-0.902; p = 0.008).ConclusionsBilateral skeletonized ITA grafting is associated with lower rates of all-cause death and MACCE than single ITA grafting in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing off-pump CABG.
Project description:ObjectivesAs definitive data from randomized controlled trials comparing the effect on long-term survival of using single internal mammary artery (SIMA) or bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting are not yet available, observational studies allow for long-term follow-up in large and representative populations, which might complement the information potentially derived from randomized trials. To compare long-term survival in patients under 70 years of age undergoing SIMA or BIMA grafting.MethodsRetrospective analysis of 3384 consecutive patients under 70 years undergoing primary isolated coronary artery bypass grafting, performed from 2000 to 2015, in a Portuguese level III Hospital. We identified 2176 and 1208 patients from the study population who underwent SIMA and BIMA grafting, respectively. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 10 years. We employed inverse probability weighting to restrict confounding by indication.ResultsThe mean age of the study population was 59.4 (± 7.6) years, and 567 (16.8%) were females. Inverse probability weighting was effective in eliminating differences in all significant baseline characteristics. Follow-up was 99.88% complete. The median follow-up time was 12.82 (interquartile range, 9.65, 16.74) years: the primary end point of all-cause mortality at 10 years occurred in 463 patients (21.3%) and 166 (13.7%) in the SIMA and BIMA grafting groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.92; P = 0.004).ConclusionsBilateral internal mammary grafting is associated with lower long-term mortality than single internal mammary grafting. Moreover, this survival benefit comes at no increased perioperative morbidity or mortality cost.
Project description:Bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting (BITA) is associated with improved survival. However, surgeons do not commonly use BITA in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) because survival is good with single internal thoracic artery grafting (SITA). We aimed to compare the outcomes of BITA with those of SITA and other approaches in patients with multivessel disease after recent MI. In total, 938 patients with recent MI (<3 months) who underwent BITA between 1996 and 2011 were compared with 682 who underwent SITA. SITA patients were older and more likely to have comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic renal failure, peripheral vascular disease), to be female, and to have had a previous MI. Acute MI and 3-vessel disease were more prevalent in the BITA group. Operative mortality of BITA patients was lower (3.0% versus 5.8%, P=0.01), and sternal infections and strokes were similar. Median follow-up was 15.21 years (range: 0-21.25 years). Survival of BITA patients was better (70.3% versus 52.5%, P<0.001). Propensity score matching was used to account for differences in preoperative characteristics between groups. Overall, 551 matched pairs had similar preoperative characteristics. BITA was a predictor of better survival in the matched groups (hazard ratio: 0.679; P=0.002; Cox model). Adjusted survival of emergency BITA and SITA patients was similar (hazard ratio: 0.883; P=0.447); however, in the nonemergency group, BITA was a predictor of better survival (hazard ratio: 0.790; P=0.009; Cox model). This study suggests that survival is better with BITA compared with SITA in nonemergency cases after recent MI, with proper patient selection.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Several risk scores have been created to predict long term mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Several studies demonstrated a reduction in long-term mortality following bilateral internal thoracic arteries (BITA) compared to single internal thoracic artery. However, these prediction models usually referred to long term survival as survival of up to 5 years. Moreover, none of these models were built specifically for operation incorporating BITA grafting. METHODS:A historical cohort study of all patients who underwent isolated BITA grafting between 1996 and 2011 at Tel-Aviv Sourasky medical center, a tertiary referral university affiliated medical center with a 24-bed cardio-thoracic surgery department. Study population (N = 2,935) was randomly divided into 2 groups: learning group which was used to build the prediction model and validation group. Cox regression was used to predict death using pre-procedural risk factors (demographic data, patient comorbidities, cardiac characteristics and patient's status). The accuracy (discrimination and calibration) of the prediction model was evaluated. METHODS AND FINDINGS:The learning (1,468 patients) and validation (1,467 patients) groups had similar preoperative characteristics and similar survival. Older age, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive lung disease, congestive heart failure, chronic renal failure, old MI, ejection fraction ≤30%, pre-operative use of intra-aortic balloon, and peripheral vascular disease, were significant predictors of mortality and were used to build the prediction model. The area under the ROC curves for 5, 10, and 15-year survival ranged between 0.742 and 0.762 for the learning group and between 0.766 and 0.770 for the validation group. The prediction model showed good calibration performance in both groups. A nomogram was built in order to introduce a simple-to-use tool for prediction of 5, 10, and 15-year survival. CONCLUSIONS:A simple-to-use validated model can be used for a prediction of 5, 10, and 15-year mortality after CABG using the BITA grafting technique.
Project description:BACKGROUND:This meta-analysis was designed to assess whether center experience affects the short- and long-term results and the relative benefits of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting (BITA) for coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS AND RESULTS:MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify all articles reporting the outcome of BITA in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. The BITA center experience was gauged according to the percentage use of BITA in the institutional overall coronary artery bypass grafting population (%BITA). The primary outcome was long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were operative mortality, perioperative myocardial infarction, perioperative stroke, deep sternal wound infections (DSWIs), and major postoperative adverse event. The rates of the primary and secondary outcomes were calculated after adjusting for %BITA. Primary and secondary outcomes were also compared between the BITA and the single internal thoracic artery arms in the adjusted studies. Meta-regression was used to evaluate the effect of %BITA on the primary and secondary outcomes. Thirty-four studies (27 894 patients undergoing BITA) were included. In the pooled analysis, the incidence rate for long-term mortality was 2.83% (95% confidence interval, 2.21%-3.61%). %BITA was significantly and inversely associated with long-term mortality and the rate of DSWI. In the pairwise comparison, %BITA was significantly and inversely associated with the risk of long-term mortality and DSWI in the group undergoing BITA. CONCLUSIONS:BITA series with higher %BITA report significantly lower long-term mortality and DSWI rate as well as higher long-term survival advantage and lower relative risk of DSWI in their BITA cohort. These findings suggest that a specific volume-outcome relationship exists for BITA grafting.