Single Internal Mammary Artery Grafting Research Articles

Long-term survival of single versus bilateral internal mammary artery grafting in patients under 70.

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.

Eleven-year outcomes of U-clips in totally robotic coronary artery bypass grafting versus standard hand-sewn running suture in robotic-assisted coronary artery bypass grafting.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing off-pump robotic coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with either interrupted nitinol U-Clips in totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass (TECAB) or standard running suture anastomosis in robotically assisted direct coronary artery bypass (RADCAB) over a decade. From January 2007 to December 2017, 280 patients underwent robotic off-pump CABG using the da Vinci S/Si Surgical System in our centre. TECAB with interrupted nitinol U-Clips anastomosis was performed in the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to LAD grafting in 126 patients and RADCAB (n = 154) of the LIMA to LAD was completed with standard running suture. After discharge, patients were contacted through telephone interview and were invited to attend the outpatient clinic every 6 months or 1 year. The graft patency was assessed by coronary angiography or computed tomography angiography. All cases were completed without conversion to median sternotomy or cardiopulmonary bypass. A total of 275 single internal mammary artery (IMA) grafts (271 LIMAs, 4 right internal mammary arteries) and 5 bilateral IMA grafts were used as single graft or composite grafts. All the patients were discharged without in-hospital mortality or adverse outcomes. The average follow-up was 89.7 ± 30.4 months (range, 14-143 months). The cumulative survival rates (P = 0.53), the cumulative IMA patency rates (P = 0.83), and the rates of freedom from major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events (P = 0.41) between TECAB and RADCAB all showed no significant difference in the follow-up. Robotic off-pump CABG using IMA grafts is safe and can provide reliable long-term outcomes. Compared with the standard hand-sewn running suture technique in RADCAB, interrupted suture with the nitinol U-Clips in TECAB showed similar long-term clinical results and graft patency in LIMA to LAD bypass grafting.

Application of bilateral internal mammary artery with different configurations in coronary artery bypass grafting

BackgroundA large number of studies have shown that BIMA grafting is superior to single internal mammary artery grafting in cardiac function protection and long-term survival after surgery. While, there is still no consensus on how is the best configuration to use BIMA. This study aims to compare intraoperative blood flow, early clinical results and early postoperative patency of different configurations of BIMA.MethodsThere were 74 patients who underwent CABGs with bilateral internal mammary artery with different configurations we included. According to the different target territories that RIMA grafted to, the patients were divided into bilateral group (group I) with 20 cases and left group (group II) with 54 cases. Intraoperative blood flow, early clinical results and early postoperative patency of different configurations of BIMA were compared.ResultsThere was no difference in the early postoperative death and major complications between group I and Group II(P>0.05). Compared with the LIMA in group II, the LIMA in group I had a slightly higher DF value (76.7 ± 6.2 vs 73.1 ± 6.8, P = 0.040). Compared with the RIMA in group II, the RIMA in group I had a slightly higher MGF (51.7 ± 34.4 ml/min vs 31.4 ± 21.4 ml/min, P = 0.024). There was no difference in the other TTFM parameters of LIMA and RIMA between group I and Group II(P>0.05). Further subgroup analysis revealed that compared with free RIMA in group II, in situ RIMA had a higher DF value (71.4 ± 7.8 vs 61.8 ± 18.1,P = 0.025). The PI of LIMA in free RIMA subgroup was higher than the PI of LIMA in in-situ RIMA subgroup (3.0 ± 1.6 vs 2.1 ± 1.0,P = 0.018). The results of early postoperative CTA examination showed that all IMAs grafts were completely patent.ConclusionsThe use of BIMA for CABG is safe and efficacious, RIMA used in right coronary artery received more satisfactory graft flow. BIMA with no stenosis and occlusion in the early stage, therefore is the ideal and stable coronary bypass graft.

Wound complications and 30-day readmissions after single and bilateral internal mammary grafting: Analysis of the Nationwide Readmissions Database.

This study compares the postoperative outcomes, 30-day readmission rates, and incidence of sternal wound infection-related readmissions between patients receiving bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) and single internal mammary artery (SIMA) grafting during coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. We utilized the weighted 2013-2014 National Readmission Database claims to identify all US adult patients who underwent CABG utilizing SIMA (n = 279,891) or BIMA (n = 11,651). Thirty-day overall and wound-related readmissions, in-hospital outcomes, costs, lengths of stay (LOS) at readmissions were compared between the two groups. Predictors of 30-day readmission were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis. After propensity matching (n = 10,339 pairs), there were no significant differences between the two groups during the index hospitalization, except for higher total hospital costs in the BIMA group (p = .02). The incidence of wound infections was also comparable between BIMA and SIMA (1.1% vs. 1.2%; p = .50). At 30-days, the overall readmission rate was elevated in SIMA patients (9.5% vs. 8.8%; p < .01), primarily impacted by cardiovascular causes. While the proportion of 30-day readmissions due to infections was significantly higher among BIMA versus SIMA patients (20.4% vs. 15.9%; p < .01), wound infections during the index hospitalization did not predict all-cause 30-day readmission among BIMA patients (p = .24) in the risk-adjusted analysis. Among the readmitted patients, LOS (6.4 vs. 6.2 days), costs ($14,440 vs. $16,461), and in-hospital mortality (2.4% vs. 1.7%) were comparable between the two groups (all p > .05). BIMA grafting is not an independent predictor of all-cause 30-day readmissions. Cardiovascular causes remain the primary driver of 30-day readmissions among SIMA and BIMA patients after CABG.

Bilateral vs Single Internal Mammary Artery Grafts for Coronary Artery Bypass in the United States

The use of the bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) in coronary artery bypass grafting remains controversial. The objective of this study was to investigate the long-term outcomes using the BIMA vs the single internal mammary artery (SIMA) in the United States. Medicare beneficiaries who underwent primary isolated coronary artery bypass surgery using the SIMA or BIMA from 1999 to 2010 were included in this retrospective study, with follow-up through 2014. Greedy matching algorithms were used for 1:4 matching on propensity score based on age, gender, year of surgery, and comorbidities. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed. The primary outcome was death from any cause. A total of 1,156,339 and 25,005 patients who were 72 ± 7.6 years of age and 70.3 ± 7.9 years of age underwent primary isolated coronary artery bypass surgery using SIMA and BIMA, respectively. Matching created comparable groups with 95,780 SIMA and 24,160 BIMA patients. Matched median survival using SIMA vs BIMA was 11.8 vs 12.4 years (P < .001) and 9.6 vs 10 years in diabetic patients (P = .006), respectively. At 10 years of follow-up, the respective survival rates of using SIMA vs BIMA were 58.3% vs 61.1%, respectively. The stratified matched median survival using SIMA vs BIMA with 1, 2, 3, and 4 or more aortocoronary bypasses were 11.8 vs 12.3 years (P= .005), 11.7 vs 12.5 years (P < .001), 11.9 vs 12.3 years (P= .01), and 11.4 vs 12 years (P= .02), respectively. Primary isolated coronary artery bypass surgery using the BIMA rather than the SIMA was associated with improved long-term survival. This survival advantage was independent of aortocoronary bypass grafts or patient diabetes status.

Impacts of Skeletonized Bilateral Internal Mammary Artery Bypass Grafting on the Risk of Deep Sternal Wound Infection.

This single-center study aimed to evaluate the incidence of deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) following skeletonized bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) harvest in a Chinese cohort. Using propensity score matching, this study also provided a present-day assessment of the impacts of skeletonized BIMA grafting versus skeletonized single internal mammary artery (SIMA) grafting on early outcomes.From January 2014 to December 2017, 2403 eligible patients were entered into either a BIMA group (n = 368) or a SIMA group (n = 2035). The incidence of DSWI was recorded. Analysis of early outcomes was further performed for propensity score-matched (1:1) cohorts.The BIMA group received a similar incidence of DSWI as did the SIMA group (1.6% versus 0.9%, P = 0.247). No significant differences between subgroup diabetic-BIMA, subgroup nondiabetic-BIMA, subgroup diabetic-SIMA, and subgroup nondiabetic-SIMA were found regarding the incidence of DSWI (2.0%, 1.4%, 1.0%, and 0.7%, respectively; P > 0.05 between groups). After matching, treatment type (skeletonized BIMA grafting versus skeletonized SIMA grafting) was not an independent risk factor for postoperative DSWI (OR = 1.309, 95% CI 0.897-2.714, P = 0.704) or predictors of other early outcomes. Additionally, the two matched groups shared similar early outcomes (including postoperative DSWI), regardless of whether or not the merger with diabetes (all P > 0.05).Skeletonized BIMA harvest as compared with skeletonized SIMA harvest was not associated with an increased risk of DSWI, regardless of whether or not the merger with diabetes. Patients with skeletonized BIMA grafting received similar surgical mortality and major postoperative morbidity as did matched patients with skeletonized SIMA grafting.

Re-exploration for bleeding associated with increased incidence of the need for reintervention after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Re-exploration for bleeding after cardiac surgery increases the risk of other severe postoperative complications and early mortality. Patients re-explored for bleeding after coronary artery bypass grafting are potentially subject to threats to graft patency. Our goal was to assess the effects of re-exploration for bleeding regarding the incidence of coronary angiographies, the need for coronary reintervention and mortality during long-term follow-up. Within the SWEDEHEART registry, all isolated coronary artery bypass operations with a single internal mammary artery and saphenous vein graft in patients aged 40-80 between the years 2005 and 2015 were identified. Incidences of coronary angiography and the subsequent need for coronary reintervention were recorded, and multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated. The study cohort consisted of 27957 patients, and the mean follow-up time was 6.5 ± 3.1 years. The incidence of re-exploration for bleeding was 3.8% (n = 1071). The cumulative incidence [95% confidence interval (CI)] of a clinically occurring coronary angiography within 1 year after surgery was 7.8% (6.3-9.7) in re-explored and 4.8% (4.6-5.1) in non-re-explored patients, and the adjusted HR was 1.64 (1.31-2.06), (P < 0.001). The cumulative incidence of the need for coronary reintervention within 1 year (95% CI) was 4.9% (3.7-6.4) in re-explored and 2.6% (2.4-2.8) in non-re-explored patients, and the adjusted HR was 1.91 (1.43-2.56). No difference in incidence or hazard ratio was observed beyond the first year. Mortality rate was increased within but not beyond 90 days after surgery. Re-exploration for bleeding is associated with an increased risk for the need of repeat coronary reintervention during the first year after coronary artery bypass surgery.

Bilateral Versus Single Internal Mammary Artery Use in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Propensity Matched Analysis

Bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafts have demonstrated superior long-term outcomes compared with single internal mammary artery (SIMA) grafts. Despite this, BIMA remains widely underutilised due to perceived technical challenges and concerns regarding wound healing. We sought to examine the morbidity and mortality associated with BIMA use in a propensity-matched cohort of patients. From 2009 to 2016, 3,594 consecutive patients underwent coronary artery bypass surgery at three affiliated institutions. Thirty-day (30) mortality and morbidity data were collected prospectively. Propensity-score matched analyses were performed for BIMA versus SIMA use controlling for a number of preoperative characteristics. Overall, 29% of procedures were performed off pump, with a greater proportion in the BIMA group (43% vs. 21%, p<0.001). In the propensity-score analysis consisting of 820 matched pairs, there were similar rates of 30-day mortality (1.3% BIMA vs. 0.9% SIMA, p=0.48) and deep sternal wound infection (1.1% BIMA vs. 0.9% SIMA, p=0.84). The rate of superficial sternal wound infection trended towards being higher in the BIMA group (2.6% vs. 1.3%, p=0.077). The rates of red blood cell transfusions (27.4% vs. 27%, p=0.217), other blood product transfusions (18% vs. 20%, p=0.217), and reoperation for bleeding (2.9% vs. 2.1%, p=0.349) were similar. Bilateral internal mammary artery use was associated with similar rates of deep sternal wound infection compared to SIMA use, with a preponderance of superficial sternal wound infections that did not result in increased mortality or transfusion requirements. The use of BIMA should be more widely considered for coronary artery bypass surgery.

Early Outcome of Bilateral Versus Single Internal Mammary Artery Grafting in the Elderly

Bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting is increasingly used in elderly patients without evidence of its risks or benefits compared with single internal mammary artery (SIMA) grafting. In all, 2,899 patients aged 70 years or older (855 [29.5%] underwent BIMA grafting) operated on from January 2015 to December 2016 and included in the prospective multicenter Outcome After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (E-CABG) study were considered in this analysis. One-to-one propensity matching resulted in 804 pairs with similar preoperative risk profile. Propensity score matched analysis showed that BIMA grafting was associated with a nonstatistically significant increased risk of inhospital death (2.7% versus 1.6%, p= 0.117). The BIMA grafting cohort had a significantly increased risk of any sternal wound infection (7.7% versus 5.1%, p= 0.031) as well as higher risk of deep sternal wound infection/mediastinitis (4.0% versus 2.2%, p= 0.048). The BIMA grafting cohort required more frequently extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (1.0% versus 0.1%, p= 0.02), and the intensive care unit stay (mean 3.6 versus 2.6 days, p < 0.001) and inhospital stay (mean 11.3 versus 10.0 days, p < 0.001) were significantly longer compared with the SIMA grafting cohort. Test for interaction showed that urgent operation in patients undergoing BIMA grafting was associated with higher risk of inhospital death (5.6% versus 1.3%, p= 0.009). Bilateral internal mammary artery grafting in elderly patients seems to be associated with a worse early outcome compared with SIMA grafting, particularly in patients undergoing urgent operation. Until more conclusive results are gathered, BIMA grafting should be reserved only for elderly patients with stable coronary artery disease, without significant baseline comorbidities and with long life expectancy.

Late Survival of Left Internal Mammary Artery-Radial Artery-Y Graft Compared to Single Internal Mammary Artery and Saphenous Vein Grafts in Coronary Bypass Surgery

Late Survival of Left Internal Mammary Artery-Radial Artery-Y Graft Compared to Single Internal Mammary Artery and Saphenous Vein Grafts in Coronary Bypass Surgery

Should Diabetes Be a Contraindication to Bilateral Internal Mammary Artery Grafting?

This study evaluates the influence of bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) versus single internal mammary artery (SIMA) grafting on postoperative morbidity and long-term survival among diabetic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). A multicenter, retrospective analysis of 47,984 consecutive CABGs performed from 1992 to 2014 at 7 medical centers was conducted. Among the study population, 1,482 CABGs with BIMA were identified, and 1,297 BIMA patients were propensity-matched to 1,297 SIMA patients. The study cohort for this analysis, drawn from matched data, included 430 diabetic patients: 217 SIMA and 213 BIMA. The primary endpoint was long-term survival. Secondary endpoints included postoperative morbidity, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. The median duration of follow-up was 9.3 (range, 4.3 to 13.9) years. Among propensity-matched diabetic patients, there was no significant difference in age, body mass index, or major baseline comorbidities. The groups were also well matched on the number of diseased coronary arteries and number of distal anastomoses performed. There was no difference in the rate of mediastinitis or sternal dehiscence (p= 0.503) or in-hospital mortality (p= 0.758) between groups. Both groups had a similar median length of stay of 5 (range, 4 to 7) days. Diabetic patients who received a BIMA had significantly improved long-term survival when compared with SIMA patients (hazard ratio 0.75 [95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.98], p= 0.034). Among diabetics undergoing CABG, use of BIMA grafting does not result in increased in-hospital morbidity or mortality and confers a long-term survival advantage when compared with SIMA grafting. Thus, diabetic patients should be considered for BIMA grafting more frequently.

Bilateral internal mammary arteries are enough for total coronary revascularization

Aim Current evidence suggests arterial grafting improves freedom from cardiac events after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. We performed this study to determine if bilateral internal mammary artery grafts provide greater benefit than single internal mammary artery grafts.

Long-Term Survival Is Adversely Affected by Any Use of Saphenous Vein Graft in Coronary Bypass Surgery

Purpose: The predominant technique of coronary bypass grafting (CABG) is a single internal mammary artery and supplementary saphenous vein grafts (SVG). Previous studies have examined an increasing number of arterial conduits; rather than exclusive use of arteries, total arterial revascularisation (TAR). Methods: A single centre experience 1996-2003 for CABG was checked against the national death registry and supplementary investigator follow-up. Overall analysis by the log-rank test (Kaplan-Meier). After exclusion of all incomplete preoperative records and redo CABG, the sample was subjected to Cox proportional hazards survival analysis for any use of SVG; and number of SVG grafts. Results: Overall survival was adversely affected in 8242 participants, p < 0.001 at 14.6 ± 2.2 years postoperative. Absolute differences between groups were small but TAR group had fewer males, more hypercholesterolaemia, family history of ischaemic heart disease, obesity and surgical acuity, whereas the SVG group had more grafts and were older. Following exclusions, Cox proportional hazards analysis found a mortality hazard with any use of SVG to be 1.2 (95% CI 1.1-1.3), p < 0.001. When analysed according to the number of SVG used (referencing SVG n = 0), the mortality hazard for 1 SVG 1.2, 2 SVG 1.4, 3 SVG 1.3, 4 SVG 1.2 and 5 SVG 6.1, with all analyses P&#8804;0.006. Conclusion: The use of even one saphenous vein graft adversely influences survival and more than one worsens survival further compared to total arterial revascularisation.

The Change of Coronary Grafting Strategy in a Single Institution Almost 20 Years Prior

Purpose: The predominant technique of coronary bypass grafting (CABG) worldwide is a single internal mammary artery and supplementary saphenous vein grafts (SVG). Exclusive use of total arterial revascularisation (TAR) is rare. Methods: A single centre experience 1996-2003 for CABG was analysed from institutional databases. Results: There were 8242 participants, with those receiving TAR (n = 6112) and any use of SVG (n = 2100). Radial artery (RA) in SVG participants was 65.8% and for TAR was 86.1%. Of 25828 anastomoses performed, IMA was 44.1%, RA 44.4% and SVG 11.5%. Use of RA in 1996 was 58% and thereafter was > 81.5%. In 1996 TAR was 40.2% but in all the remaining years TAR was 73.4 – 86.7%. TAR by surgeon was as low as 7.5% and 27.2% in two who retired in 1996 for the remainder was 56.2 – 97.9%. Conclusion: A dramatic change in practice occurred in 1996 which was sustained and broadly applicable for the remainder of the study period. High rates of total arterial revascularisation were achieved.

The Use of Bilateral Internal Mammary Arteries for Coronary Revascularization in Patients with COPD: Is It a Good Idea?

The use of bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) is limited worldwide, especially in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thus, we assessed the safety of the use of BIMA in COPD patients. From cohorts of 8846 patients operated on at our center for primary isolated multi-vessel coronary bypass operations between 2002 and 2012, we studied two propensity-matched groups of patients with COPD who received either single internal mammary artery and saphenous vein grafts (SIMA group: 137 patients) or exclusively BIMA (BIMA group: 137 patients). Preoperative data were similar regarding age (63.59 ± 10.62 versus 65.55 ± 9.61 years; P = .10), body mass index (BMI) (28.6 ± 4.71 versus 28.42 ± 3.86 kg/m2; P = .72), diabetes mellitus (32% versus 27%; P = .08), EuroSCORE (4.34 ± 2.23 versus 4.8 ± 2.52; P = .09) and ejection fraction (58.7 ± 13.08% versus 60.29 ± 14.13%; P = .32). No significant differences were noticed between the two groups regarding the number of peripheral anastomoses (3.07 ± 0.77 versus 3.06 ± 0.85; P = .90), total operation time (192.17 ± 43.06 versus 200.63 ± 39.24 min; P = .08), postoperative stroke (0.7% versus 0%; P = .29), myocardial infarction (2.92% versus 3.6%; P = .81), reintubation (2.9% versus 4.4%; P = .66), reexploration (0.7% versus 2.2%; P = .32), deep sternal wound infection (2.9% versus 3.6%; P = .81) and 30-day mortality (2.2% versus 2.9%; P = .77). However, postoperative blood loss (726.1 ± 468.35 versus 907 ± 890.58 mL; P = .03) was higher in the BIMA group. COPD patients can benefit from coronary artery revascularization with BIMA; however, postoperative blood loss can be higher using this technique.

Total Arterial Coronary Revascularisation is Associated with Lower Postoperative Major Adverse Cardiac and Cerebral Events

Introduction: Total arterial revascularisation (TAR) with internal mammary artery (IMA) and radial artery (RA) may be associated better survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE) compared to the standard approached of coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG) with single IMA and supplementary saphenous venous grafts (SIMA+SVG). Methods: Patients with primary CABG at Royal Melbourne Hospital, 1996-2004 were contacted via telephone or mail to assess MACCE (myocardial infarction (MI), stent insertion (PCI), redo CABG, and stroke). Only those had TAR or SIMA+SVG with postoperative duration > 10 years were included. To reduce treatment selection bias, 1 to 1 nearest-neighbour propensity score matching (PSM) with random matching with calliper 0.2*SD were applied. Preoperative covariates were smoking, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, obesity, any concomitant heart valve disease, positive family history and renal failure. Results: 215 patients completed follow up data, TAR (170) and SIMA+SVG (45). Age at follow up was 77.3±9.9 yr with 82.5% males, 93% isolated CABG. 15 patients were excluded (redo CABG = 12, incomplete preoperative data = 3). Two groups were formed (TAR (156) and SIMA+SVG (44), and PSM yielded 41 in each group with. Balance covariates were achieved with absolute standardised difference < 0.25. The proportion of patients with at least one MACCE event was lower for TAR than for SIMA+SVG, 12 vs. 39%, p=0.010. MACCE subgroup data for TAR vs. SIMA+SVG was: MI 2 vs. 12%, PCI 7 vs. 24%, redo cardiac surgery 0 vs. 0%, stroke 5 vs. 10%. Conclusion: TAR has a lower MACCE compared to SIMA+SVG.

Retraction: “Bilateral versus single internal mammary artery grafting in patients with severe coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by Yi-cheng Wu, Jian-feng Zhang, Guang Ning and Qiang Zhao

Retraction: “Bilateral versus single internal mammary artery grafting in patients with severe coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by Yi-cheng Wu, Jian-feng Zhang, Guang Ning and Qiang Zhao

Is Bilateral Internal Mammary Arterial Grafting Beneficial for Patients Aged 75 Years or Older?

Although bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting is performed with increasing regularity in elderly patients, whether it is truly beneficial, and therefore indicated, in these patients remains uncertain. We retrospectively investigated early and late outcomes of BIMA grafting in patients aged ≥75 years. We identified 460 patients aged ≥75 years from among 2,618 patients who underwent either single internal mammary artery (SIMA) grafting (n=293) or BIMA grafting (n=107). Early outcomes did not differ between the SIMA and BIMA patients (30-day mortality: 1.7% vs. 0%, P=0.39; sternal wound infection: 1.0% vs. 4.7%; P=0.057). Late outcomes, 10-year survival in particular, were improved in the BIMA group (36.6% vs. 48.1%, P=0.033). In the analysis of the results in propensity score-matched groups (196 patients in the SIMA group, 98 patients in the BIMA group), improved 10-year survival was documented in the BIMA group (34.8% vs. 47.6%, P=0.030). Cox proportional regression analysis showed SIMA usage (non-use of BIMA) to be a predictor for late mortality (hazard ratio: 0.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.98, P=0.042). We further compared outcomes between the total non-elderly patients (n=2,158) and total elderly patients (n=460). BIMA usage was similar, as was 30-day mortality (1.0% vs. 1.3%, respectively). A survival advantage, with no increase in early mortality, can be expected from BIMA grafting in patients aged ≥75 years. (Circ J 2016; 80: 1756-1763).

Long-term outcome of revascularization with composite T-grafts: Is bilateral mammary grafting better than single mammary and radial artery grafting?

ObjectiveBilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting is associated with improved survival. However, many surgeons are reluctant to use this technique, owing to the potentially increased risk of sternal infection. The composite T-graft with radial artery (RA) attached end-to-side to the left internal mammary artery (IMA) provides complete arterial revascularization without increased risk of sternal infection. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes of these 2 strategies. MethodsPatients who underwent BIMA grafting using the composite T-graft technique, between 1996 and 2010 (n = 1329), were compared with 389 patients who underwent composite grafting with a single IMA + RA during the same time period. ResultsPatients undergoing single IMA grafting were older, more often women, and more likely to have diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and COPD, and to need an emergency operation. Congestive heart failure, left main disease, and recent myocardial infarction were more prevalent with bilateral grafting. Propensity-score matching was used to account for differences between groups in preoperative patient characteristics. The 268 matched pairs had similar characteristics.The median follow-up time was 14.19 (95% confidence interval 13.43-14.95) years. Operative mortality and Kaplan–Meier 10-year survival of the 2 matched groups were similar (3.4% vs 3.7%, and 61.6% vs 64%, for the groups treated with BIMA and single IMA, respectively). Cox-adjusted survival was similar (P = .514). Age, chronic renal failure, and performance of <3 bypass grafts were independent predictors of decreased survival. ConclusionsThis study suggests that long-term outcomes of arterial revascularization with a composite T-graft constructed using left IMA and RA are not inferior to outcomes after BIMA grafting.

Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery with bilateral or single internal mammary artery grafts

ObjectiveHybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive left internal mammary artery (LIMA)–left anterior descending artery (LAD) bypass with percutaneous intervention of non-LAD vessels. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of HCR to conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with single internal mammary artery (SIMA) or bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting. MethodsBetween October 2003 and September 2013, 306 consecutive patients who underwent HCR were compared with 8254 patients who underwent CABG with SIMA (7381; 89.4%) or BIMA (873; 10.6%) at a US academic center. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (major cerebrovascular and cardiac event [MACCE]). In addition to multiple logistic and linear regression analysis, a propensity score–matched analysis was used to compare HCR with SIMA and with BIMA. ResultsThe Society of Thoracic Surgeons–predicted risk of mortality was 1.6% for HCR, 2.1% for SIMA, and 1.1% for BIMA (P < .001). Factors associated with HCR use were older age, lower body mass index, history of percutaneous coronary intervention, and 2-vessel disease. In propensity-matched groups, 30-day MACCE rates were comparable (3.3% for HCR vs 1.3% for BIMA [odds ratio (OR), 2.50; P = .12] and vs 3.6% for SIMA [OR, 1.00; P = 1.00]). In-hospital complications were lower after HCR versus SIMA or BIMA (OR, 0.59; P = .033 and OR, 0.55; P = .015, respectively), as was the need for blood transfusion (OR, 0.44; P < .001 and OR, 0.57; P < .001). HCR was associated with shorter hospital stay compared with SIMA (OR, 1.28; P = .038) or BIMA (OR, 1.40; P = .006). No survival difference between matched groups was found at midterm follow-up (HCR vs SIMA: hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-1.38; P = .66; HCR vs BIMA: HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.48-2.29; P = .91). ConclusionsHCR may represent a safe, less invasive alternative to conventional CABG in carefully selected patients, with similar short-term and midterm outcomes as CABG performed with either SIMA or BIMA grafting.