The Patency of Sequential and Individual Vein Coronary Bypass Grafts: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Saphenous vein grafts continue to be the backbone of daily coronary revascularization practice, but controversy still exists about whether to use them as an individual or sequential graft. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies to compare the midterm or long-term patency of sequential vein coronary bypass grafts with those of vein grafts. A comprehensive search strategy was run in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Inclusion criteria were the following: (1) two cohorts of patients received sequential and single saphenous vein coronary bypass grafting, respectively; (2) prospective or retrospective cohort design; and (3) graft patency examined by angiography or ultrafast computed tomography. Two researchers independently performed the literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment. We identified 1,385 titles, reviewed 38 articles for inclusion criteria, and included 12 studies in the meta-analysis. The risk of occlusion in sequential grafts was lower (risk ratio [RR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 0.74) than that in single grafts. The risk of occlusion in side-to-side anastomoses was lower (RR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.80) than that of end-to-side anastomoses for sequential vein grafts. There was no difference in occlusion between the distal end-to-side anastomoses of sequential vein grafts and those of single vein grafts (RR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.06). The midterm and long-term patency of sequential vein grafts appears to be better than that of single vein grafts and the patency of side-to-side anastomoses appears to be better than that of end-to-side anastomoses for sequential vein grafts.