Abstract
Whether arterial conduits are superior to venous grafts in coronary artery bypassing has been debated. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical outcomes after total arterial revascularization versus conventional coronary bypassing using both arterial and venous conduits in isolated three-vessel coronary disease. Between 2003 and 2005, 503 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting for three-vessel coronary disease were enrolled. A total of 117 patients underwent total arterial revascularization (Artery group) whereas 386 patients were treated with arterial and venous conduits (Vein group). Major adverse outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, stroke and repeat revascularization) were compared. Clinical follow-up was complete in all patients with a mean duration of 6.1 ± 0.9 yr. After adjustment for differences in baseline risk factors, risks of death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-1.82, P = 0.90), myocardial infarction (HR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02-2.63, P = 0.22), stroke (HR 1.29, 95% CI 0.35-4.72, P = 0.70), repeat revascularization (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.26-1.55, P = 0.32) and the composite outcomes (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.50-1.36, P = 0.45) were similar between two groups. Since the use of veins does not increase the risks of adverse outcomes compared with total arterial revascularization, a selection of the conduit should be more liberal.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
