Klinik für Herz- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitatsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Heart Center NRW, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2020 Dec;68(8):687-694. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1677835. Epub 2019 Feb 9.
Coronary artery bypass grafting is the first-line therapy for severe multivessel coronary artery disease. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcome in patients undergoing isolated off-pump surgery with the single or bilateral internal mammary artery (SIMA or BIMA) approach.
We performed a propensity score-matched analysis in 1,852 consecutive patients, aged 50 to 70 years, who underwent myocardial revascularization at our institution between July 2009 and August 2016. Primary end point was the probability of survival.
Mean follow-up was 36.3 (range: 0.1-89.6) months. The probability of survival in the SIMA and BIMA groups was 98.6 and 99.0% at year 1, 92.0 and 92.5% at year 5, and 85.6 and 81.6% at year 7, respectively, with a hazard ratio (HR) of mortality for the BIMA group versus the SIMA group of 0.98 (95% confidence interval[CI]: 0.64-1.52; = 0.94). There was evidence for interaction between diabetes and study group on mortality risk (HR = 2.59, 95% CI: 1.07-6.23; = 0.034). Freedom from mediastinitis/wound infection was higher in the SIMA group than in the BIMA group (99.5 and 96.9%, respectively; HR of an event = 6.39, 95% CI: 2.88-14.18; < 0.001). The corresponding values in the subgroups of diabetic patients were 98.6 and 90.9%, respectively (HR = 6.45, 95% CI: 2.24-18.58; = 0.001). Mediastinitis/wound infection was associated with increased mortality risk (HR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.29-6.78; = 0.010).
Overall, our data indicate similar probability of survival up to a maximum follow-up of 7 years by off-pump surgery with the SIMA or BIMA approach. However, in diabetic patients, the clinical outcome indicates caution regarding the use of the BIMA approach.
冠状动脉旁路移植术是治疗严重多支冠状动脉疾病的首选疗法。我们旨在研究采用单支或双侧内乳动脉(SIMA 或 BIMA)方法进行单纯非体外循环手术的患者的临床结果。
我们对 2009 年 7 月至 2016 年 8 月在我们机构接受心肌血运重建的 1852 例年龄在 50 至 70 岁的连续患者进行了倾向评分匹配分析。主要终点是生存率的概率。
平均随访 36.3 个月(范围:0.1-89.6)。SIMA 和 BIMA 组的 1 年生存率分别为 98.6%和 99.0%,5 年生存率分别为 92.0%和 92.5%,7 年生存率分别为 85.6%和 81.6%,BIMA 组与 SIMA 组的死亡率风险比(HR)为 0.98(95%置信区间[CI]:0.64-1.52;=0.94)。糖尿病和研究组之间存在死亡率风险的交互作用(HR=2.59,95%CI:1.07-6.23;=0.034)。SIMA 组的胸骨炎/伤口感染无事件率高于 BIMA 组(分别为 99.5%和 96.9%;事件的 HR=6.39,95%CI:2.88-14.18;<0.001)。糖尿病患者亚组的相应值分别为 98.6%和 90.9%(HR=6.45,95%CI:2.24-18.58;=0.001)。胸骨炎/伤口感染与死亡率风险增加相关(HR=2.96,95%CI:1.29-6.78;=0.010)。
总的来说,我们的数据表明,通过非体外循环手术采用 SIMA 或 BIMA 方法,在最长 7 年的随访中,生存率的概率相似。然而,在糖尿病患者中,临床结果表明对使用 BIMA 方法需要谨慎。