Momin Aziz, Ranjan Redoy, Valencia Oswaldo, Jacques Adam, Lim Pitt, Fluck David, Chua Tuan P, Chandrasekaran Venkatachalam
Department of Cardiac Surgery, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2024 Apr 8;17:1505-1512. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S461567. eCollection 2024.
This study determined hazard factors and long-term survival rate of total arterial coronary artery bypass graft surgery over 20 years in an extensively large, population-based cohort.
A total of 2979 patients who underwent isolated CABG from April 1999 to March 2020 were studied in 4 groups- Group-A (bilateral internal mammary artery ± radial artery), Group-B (single internal mammary artery + radial artery ± saphenous vein), Group-C (single internal mammary artery ± saphenous vein; no radial artery), and Group-D (radial artery ± saphenous vein; no internal mammary artery). The study endpoints analysed the correlation between the number and types of grafts with the survival time following isolated CABG surgery.
The total arterial revascularization (Group A) group had an admirable mean long-term survival of ~19 years, compared to 18.6 years (Group B), 15.86 years (Group C), and 10.99 years (Group D). A Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrated confidence interval (CI) for study groups- (95% CI 18.33-19.94), (95% CI 18.14-19.06), (95% CI 15.40-16.32), and (95% CI 9.61-12.38) in Group A, B, C, D respectively. In the Holm-Sidak method analysis, significant associations existed between the number of arterial grafts and the long-term outcome. A statistically significant (P≤0.05) long-term survival advantage for arterial grafting was demonstrated, especially total arterial revascularisation over all other combinations except single internal mammary artery + radial artery grafting.
In this series, over 20 years, total arterial CABG use has excellent long-term survival, achieving complete myocardial revascularisation. There is no significant difference between the BIMA group and SIMA with radial artery. However, there is a reduced survival with decreased use of arterial conduits.
本研究在一个大规模、基于人群的队列中,确定了20多年来全动脉冠状动脉旁路移植手术的危险因素和长期生存率。
对1999年4月至2020年3月期间接受单纯冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的2979例患者进行了研究,分为4组:A组(双侧乳内动脉±桡动脉)、B组(单支乳内动脉+桡动脉±大隐静脉)、C组(单支乳内动脉±大隐静脉;无桡动脉)和D组(桡动脉±大隐静脉;无乳内动脉)。研究终点分析了单纯CABG手术后移植血管的数量和类型与生存时间之间的相关性。
全动脉血运重建(A组)组的平均长期生存率令人钦佩,约为19年,而B组为18.6年,C组为15.86年,D组为10.99年。Kaplan-Meier曲线显示各研究组的置信区间(CI)分别为:A组(95%CI 18.33 - 19.94)、B组(95%CI 18.14 - 19.06)、C组(95%CI 15.40 - 16.32)和D组(95%CI 9.61 - 12.38)。在Holm-Sidak方法分析中,动脉移植血管的数量与长期预后之间存在显著关联。结果表明,动脉移植具有统计学显著(P≤0.05)的长期生存优势,尤其是全动脉血运重建相对于除单支乳内动脉+桡动脉移植之外的所有其他组合。
在本系列研究中,20多年来,全动脉CABG的长期生存率良好,实现了完全心肌血运重建。双侧乳内动脉组和单支乳内动脉加桡动脉组之间无显著差异。然而,随着动脉导管使用的减少,生存率会降低。