LaPar Damien J, Crosby Ivan K, Rich Jeffrey B, Quader Mohammed A, Speir Alan M, Kern John A, Tribble Curt, Kron Irving L, Ailawadi Gorav
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Mid Atlantic Cardiothoracic Surgeons, Norfolk, Virginia.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Jul;100(1):8-14; discussion 14-5. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.02.088. Epub 2015 May 20.
Bilateral internal mammary arterial (BIMA) grafts have repeatedly demonstrated superior outcomes compared with single IMA (SIMA) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Despite known survival benefits with BIMA use, perceived perioperative challenges often preclude BIMA use. We hypothesized that the use of BIMA remains underutilized, even in low-risk patients.
A total of 43,823 primary, isolated CABG patients in a regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database were evaluated. Patients were stratified by BIMA versus SIMA use. Surgical candidates considered "low risk" for BIMA use included the following: age less than 70 years; no or mild chronic lung disease; body mass index less than 30; and absence of diabetes. The BIMA patients (n = 1,333) were 1:1 propensity matched to SIMA patients (n = 1,333) and outcomes were compared.
Overall, BIMA use was 3%; 24% (n = 10,327) of patients met "low-risk" criteria for BIMA use. Among "low-risk" patients, BIMA utilization was 6%. Propensity-matched comparisons revealed similar preoperative risk profiles between BIMA and SIMA patients (Predicted Risk of Mortality [PROM] 1.1% vs 1.1%, p > 0.05). The BIMA use was associated with longer cross-clamp time (71 vs 62 minutes, p < 0.05). Importantly, BIMA use was not associated with increased postoperative mortality, morbidity, or hospital length of stay (all p > 0.05). However, hospital readmission within 30 days was 41% greater for BIMA patients compared with SIMA patients (p = 0.01).
Bilateral IMA graft use appears to remain underutilized in the modern surgical era, even in low surgical risk patients. The BIMA use does not appear to increase the risk of postoperative morbidity, although requires longer operative times and a higher risk for readmission. Efforts to more clearly understand surgeon motivators for the use of BIMA grafting are needed.
与冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)后使用单支内乳动脉(SIMA)相比,双侧内乳动脉(BIMA)移植已多次证明具有更好的疗效。尽管已知使用BIMA有生存益处,但人们认为围手术期的挑战常常阻碍BIMA的使用。我们推测,即使在低风险患者中,BIMA的使用仍未得到充分利用。
对区域胸外科医师协会数据库中的43823例初次单纯CABG患者进行了评估。根据是否使用BIMA对患者进行分层。被认为使用BIMA“低风险”的手术候选人包括以下情况:年龄小于70岁;无慢性肺病或慢性肺病较轻;体重指数小于30;且无糖尿病。将BIMA患者(n = 1333)与SIMA患者(n = 1333)按1:1倾向匹配,并比较结果。
总体而言,BIMA的使用率为3%;24%(n = 10327)的患者符合BIMA使用的“低风险”标准。在“低风险”患者中,BIMA的使用率为6%。倾向匹配比较显示,BIMA和SIMA患者术前风险特征相似(预测死亡率[PROM]分别为1.1%和1.1%,p > 0.05)。使用BIMA与更长的阻断时间相关(71分钟对62分钟,p < 0.05)。重要的是,使用BIMA与术后死亡率、发病率增加或住院时间延长无关(所有p > 0.05)。然而,BIMA患者30天内的再入院率比SIMA患者高41%(p = 0.01)。
即使在手术风险较低的患者中,现代外科手术时代双侧IMA移植的使用似乎仍未得到充分利用。使用BIMA似乎不会增加术后发病风险,尽管手术时间更长且再入院风险更高。需要努力更清楚地了解外科医生使用BIMA移植的动机。