Glineur David, Etienne Pierre-Yves, Kuschner Cyrus E, Shaw Richard E, Ferrari Giovanni, Rioux Nancy, Papadatos Spiridon, Brizzio Mariano, Mindich Bruce, Zapolanski Alex, Grau Juan B
Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Cliniques St Luc Bouge, Namur, Belgium.
Division of Cardiac Surgery, Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017 Feb 1;51(2):368-375. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezw282.
Utilization of bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMAs) has been shown to improve long-term outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. To achieve complete revascularization, BIMAs may be used as either sole conduits for revascularization through a Y-graft configuration (BIMA-Y) or deployed with additional grafts used in conjunction with BIMAs. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of two institutions that predominantly used either the BIMA-Y configuration or BIMA plus additional grafts to achieve optimal revascularization.
From 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2010, 436 patients were revascularized using a non-sequential BIMA grafting at one institution (Group A), with veins being used for additional targets. At the second institution (Group B), 771 patients were revascularized using a BIMA-Y graft for all distal targets. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to compare unadjusted survival between the groups. Cox proportional hazards regression modelling was used to provide an adjusted comparison of survival between the groups.
There was no statistically significant difference between the average number of anastomotic sites used in Group A and Group B (A = 4.0 ± 0.7 vs B = 4.0 ± 0.7; P = 0.24). Group A did not have a significantly greater in-hospital mortality (0.7% vs 1.0% P = 0.39), stroke (0.5% vs 0.8% P = 0.40), deep sternal wound infection (0.0% vs 0.6% P = 0.11) or reoperation for bleeding (1.6% vs 0.6% P = 0.10) than Group B. Cox proportional hazards analyses demonstrated that at 14 years, Group B had a significantly improved survival compared to Group A (Group B = 88% vs Group A = 81%) with an overall reduction in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.780, 95% confidence interval 0.448–0.849; P = 0.043).
Utilization of the BIMA-Y configuration was associated with improved survival when compared to BIMA grafting with additional vein grafts. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of BIMA-Y grafting against other means of providing complete arterial revascularization.
已证实使用双侧乳内动脉(BIMAs)可改善接受冠状动脉旁路移植术患者的长期预后。为实现完全血运重建,BIMAs可用作通过Y形移植配置(BIMA-Y)进行血运重建的唯一管道,或与其他移植物一起与BIMAs联合使用。本研究的目的是比较两个主要使用BIMA-Y配置或BIMA加其他移植物来实现最佳血运重建的机构的长期预后。
从2000年1月1日至2010年12月31日,一家机构(A组)对436例患者采用非序贯BIMA移植进行血运重建,使用静脉用于其他目标血管。在第二家机构(B组),771例患者对所有远端目标血管采用BIMA-Y移植进行血运重建。采用Kaplan-Meier分析比较两组间未经调整的生存率。采用Cox比例风险回归模型对两组间的生存率进行调整后的比较。
A组和B组使用的吻合口平均数量无统计学显著差异(A组=4.0±0.7 vs B组=4.0±0.7;P=0.24)。A组在院内死亡率(0.7% vs 1.0%,P=0.39)、中风(0.5% vs 0.8%,P=0.40)、深部胸骨伤口感染(0.0% vs 0.6%,P=0.11)或因出血再次手术(1.6% vs 0.6%,P=0.10)方面均未显著高于B组。Cox比例风险分析表明,在14年时,B组的生存率与A组相比有显著改善(B组=88% vs A组=81%),总体死亡率降低(调整后风险比0.780,95%置信区间0.448-0.849;P=0.043)。
与使用其他静脉移植物的BIMA移植相比,使用BIMA-Y配置与生存率提高相关。有必要进一步研究评估BIMA-Y移植相对于其他提供完全动脉血运重建方法的疗效。