Search

Background: Although previous studies have demonstrated that patients receiving bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) conduits during coronary artery bypass grafting have better long-term survival than those receiving a single internal mammary artery (SIMA), data on risk of repeat revascularization are more limited. In this analysis, we compare the timing, frequency, and type of repeat coronary revascularization among patients receiving BIMA and SIMA., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of 47 984 consecutive coronary artery bypass grafting surgeries performed from 1992 to 2014 among 7 medical centers reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry. Among the study population, 1482 coronary artery bypass grafting surgeries with BIMA were identified, and 1297 patients receiving BIMA were propensity-matched to 1297 patients receiving SIMA. The primary end point was freedom from repeat coronary revascularization., Results: The median duration of follow-up was 13.2 (IQR, 7.4-17.7) years. Patients were well matched by age, body mass index, major comorbidities, and cardiac function. There was a higher freedom from repeat revascularization among patients receiving BIMA than among patients receiving SIMA (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.94]; P =0.009). Among the matched cohort, 19.4% (n=252) of patients receiving SIMA underwent repeat revascularization, whereas this frequency was 15.1% (n=196) among patients receiving BIMA ( P =0.004). The majority of repeat revascularization procedures were percutaneous coronary interventions (94.2%), and this did not differ between groups ( P =0.274). Groups also did not differ in the ratio of native versus graft vessel percutaneous coronary intervention ( P =0.899), or regarding percutaneous coronary intervention target vessels; the most common targets in both groups were the right coronary ( P =0.133) and circumflex arteries ( P =0.093). In comparison with SIMA, BIMA grafting was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality at 12 years of follow-up (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.91]; P =0.001), and there was no difference in in-hospital morbidity., Conclusions: BIMA grafting was associated with a reduced risk of repeat revascularization and an improvement in long-term survival and should be considered more frequently during coronary artery bypass grafting., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Use of endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting has developed into a routine surgical approach at many cardiothoracic surgical centers. The association between this technique and long-term morbidity and mortality has recently been called into question. The present report describes the use of open versus endoscopic vein harvesting and risk of mortality and repeat revascularization in northern New England during a time period (2001 to 2004) in which both techniques were being performed., Methods and Results: From 2001 to 2004, 8542 patients underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting procedures, 52.5% with endoscopic vein harvesting. Surgical discretion dictated the vein harvest approach. The main outcomes were death and repeat revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting) within 4 years of the index admission. The use of endoscopic vein harvesting increased from 34% in 2001 to 75% in 2004. In general, patients undergoing endoscopic vein harvesting had greater disease burden. Endoscopic vein harvesting was associated with an increased adjusted risk of bleeding requiring a return to the operating room (2.4 versus 1.7; P=0.03) but a decreased risk of leg wound infections (0.2 versus 1.1; P<0.001). Use of endoscopic vein harvesting was associated with a significant reduction in long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.92) but a nonsignificant increased risk of repeat revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.74). Similar results were obtained in propensity-stratified analysis., Conclusions: During 2001 to 2004 in northern New England, the use of endoscopic vein harvesting was not associated with harm. There was a nonsignificant increase in repeat revascularization, and survival was not decreased.