Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Anaesthesia, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden.
Section of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Feb 1;53(2):448-454. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx280.
Coronary artery bypass grafting using saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) in addition to the left internal mammary artery (IMA) graft is vitiated by poor long-term patency of the vein grafts. Hypothetically, the increased use of arterial grafts could confer even better outcomes. Our goal was to evaluate results after coronary artery bypass grafting in Sweden, where arterial grafts were used as a second conduit.
Within the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART) registry, we identified patients who had coronary artery bypass grafting from 2001 to 2015 using the IMA and the SVG, the radial artery (RA) or the additional IMA [bilateral IMA (BIMA)] as a second conduit. Deaths, postoperative incidence of coronary angiography and need for reintervention were recorded, and multivariable adjusted hazard ratios were calculated for different types of grafts.
The study population comprised 46 343 cases of IMA + SVG, 1036 cases of IMA + RA and 862 cases of BIMA. The mean follow-up time (SD) was 9.3 (4.2) years for IMA + SVG, 10.7 (4.1) years for IMA + RA grafts and 5.5 (5.0) years for the BIMA graft. The adjusted hazard ratio for death was (95% confidence interval) 1.01 (0.89-1.14) for IMA + RA and 0.87 (0.72-1.06) for BIMA grafts compared with IMA + SVG. The adjusted hazard ratio for the first angiographic examination was (95% confidence interval) 0.96 (0.84-1.10) for IMA + RA and 1.13 (0.95-1.35) for BIMA grafts. The adjusted hazard ratio for the need for reintervention was (95% confidence interval) 0.91 (0.75-1.09) for IMA + RA and 1.26 (1.00-1.58) for BIMA grafts.
Patients who had arterial grafts as second conduits did not demonstrate a better outcome in any of the studied end-points. Radial artery grafts seem to be preferable to BIMA grafts as an alternative to an SVG.
在左内乳动脉(IMA)桥接的基础上,使用大隐静脉桥(SVG)进行冠状动脉旁路移植术,其静脉桥的长期通畅率较差。理论上,增加使用动脉桥可能会带来更好的结果。我们的目标是评估 2001 年至 2015 年在瑞典进行冠状动脉旁路移植术的结果,在瑞典,动脉桥被用作第二根移植物。
在瑞典 WEB 系统评估基于推荐疗法的心脏病强化和发展的证据(SWEDEHEART)注册中,我们确定了使用 IMA 和 SVG、桡动脉(RA)或 IMA 的附加(双侧 IMA [BIMA])作为第二根移植物进行冠状动脉旁路移植术的患者。记录死亡、术后冠状动脉造影发生率和需要再次介入的情况,并计算不同类型移植物的多变量调整后的危险比。
研究人群包括 46343 例 IMA+SVG、1036 例 IMA+RA 和 862 例 BIMA。IMA+SVG 的平均随访时间(标准差)为 9.3(4.2)年,IMA+RA 移植物为 10.7(4.1)年,BIMA 移植物为 5.5(5.0)年。与 IMA+SVG 相比,IMA+RA 的死亡调整危险比(95%置信区间)为 1.01(0.89-1.14),BIMA 为 0.87(0.72-1.06)。首次血管造影检查的调整危险比(95%置信区间)为 IMA+RA 为 0.96(0.84-1.10),BIMA 为 1.13(0.95-1.35)。需要再次介入的调整危险比(95%置信区间)为 IMA+RA 为 0.91(0.75-1.09),BIMA 为 1.26(1.00-1.58)。
在研究的终点中,使用动脉桥作为第二根移植物的患者在任何一个终点都没有表现出更好的结果。桡动脉桥似乎优于 BIMA 桥,是 SVG 的替代选择。