Randomized comparative study of radial artery and right gastroepiploic artery in composite arterial graft for CABG

Abstract

Arterial grafts have been used to achieve better long-term results and improve graft patency in coronary artery bypass grafting. Composite graft was proposed to overcome inconveniences of proximal anastomoses to the aorta and increase the use and surgical options of arterial grafts. However, lack of prospective randomized studies with this kind of grafts is evident. We compare the results of composite Y-grafts of the radial artery (RA) and the right gastroepiploic artery (RGEA) proximally anastomosed to the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) for CABG, evaluated through angiography, in a prospective randomized study. Between August 1998 and November 1999, 60 patients were randomly divided into two groups: group I (GI) received RGEA graft and group II (GII), RA graft. LITA was used to graft the left anterior descending artery and RGEA or RA was placed to obtuse marginal or first diagonal branch. The right coronary artery branches was grafted with saphenous vein graft (SVG) when necessary. All coronary arteries receiving arterial grafts had > or =75% proximal stenosis and diameter > or =1.5 mm. GI and GII preoperative data were similar, 63 distal anastomoses were performed with the LITA, 32 with the RA and 32 with the RGEA. There were two perioperative deaths (3.3%), one in each group, none related to cardiac causes. Four (6.6%) q-wave myocardial infarctions were found and two (3.3%) patients showed low cardiac output syndrome. Angiography was performed in all surviving patients from the 8th to 15th postoperative day and showed a patency rate of 96.5% (56/58) for LITA, 89.6% (26/29) for RA and 68.9% (20/29) for RGEA, with a statistically significant difference between RGEA and RA (P=0.025). Radial artery had better early results than right gastroepiploic artery. Use of the LITA as inflow graft seems not to affect its good patency. Use of the RGEA as composite graft should not be encouraged. Long-term follow-up with objective investigation and randomized trials is required to confirm better results of composite conduits.