Abstract

IntroductionThe 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsFourteen publications (from 2012 to 2020) involving a total of 22,746 patients (TAR: 8,941 patients; non-TAR: 13,805 patients) were included. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for long-term mortality (over 10 years) was lower in the TAR group than in the non-TAR group (random effect model: HR 0.676, 95% confidence interval 0.586-0.779, P<0.001). There was evidence of low heterogeneity of treatment effect among the studies for mortality, and none of the studies had a particular impact on the summary result. The result was not influenced by age, sex, or comorbidities. We identified low risk of publication bias related to this outcome.ConclusionThis review found that TAR presents the best long-term results in patients who undergo CABG. Given that many patients are likely to benefit from TAR, its use should be encouraged.

Highlights

  • The benefit of total arterial revascularization (TAR) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains a controversial issue

  • The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for long-term mortality was lower in the TAR group than in the nonTAR group

  • This review found that TAR presents the best longterm results in patients who undergo CABG

Read more

Summary

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. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is one of the most commonly performed surgical operations worldwide and is currently considered as the revascularization strategy of choice for multivessel coronary artery disease[1]. The superiority of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) over the saphenous vein graft (SVG) to bypass a stenotic left anterior descending artery has long been established and is considered standard of care[3]. Bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafts and/or radial artery (RA) grafts have been consistently.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call