Centro Clinico-Diagnostico "G.B. Morgagni," Centro Cuore, Pedara, Italy.
Division of Cardiac Surgery, Ospedali Riuniti, Trieste, Italy.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2018 Jun;105(6):1717-1723. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.11.079. Epub 2018 Feb 2.
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.
与单支内乳动脉(SIMA)搭桥相比,双侧内乳动脉(BIMA)搭桥在无证据表明其具有风险或益处的情况下,在老年患者中越来越多地被使用。
在 2015 年 1 月至 2016 年 12 月期间,共对 2899 名年龄在 70 岁或以上(855 名[29.5%]接受 BIMA 搭桥)的患者进行了前瞻性多中心冠状动脉旁路移植术后的结局(E-CABG)研究,这些患者均被纳入本分析。
1:1 倾向评分匹配产生了 804 对具有相似术前风险特征的配对。倾向评分匹配分析显示,BIMA 搭桥与住院期间死亡风险增加无关(2.7%对 1.6%,p=0.117)。BIMA 搭桥组胸骨伤口感染的风险显著增加(7.7%对 5.1%,p=0.031),且深部胸骨伤口感染/纵隔炎的风险更高(4.0%对 2.2%,p=0.048)。BIMA 搭桥组更频繁地需要体外膜肺氧合(1.0%对 0.1%,p=0.02),且 ICU 住院时间(平均 3.6 天对 2.6 天,p<0.001)和住院时间(平均 11.3 天对 10.0 天,p<0.001)均显著长于 SIMA 搭桥组。交互检验显示,BIMA 搭桥患者行急诊手术与住院期间死亡风险增加相关(5.6%对 1.3%,p=0.009)。
与 SIMA 搭桥相比,老年患者双侧内乳动脉搭桥似乎与更差的早期结果相关,特别是在接受急诊手术的患者中。在获得更确凿的结果之前,BIMA 搭桥应仅保留给患有稳定型冠状动脉疾病、无明显基线合并症和预期寿命较长的老年患者。