Ding Qiuju, Zhu Qingqing, Lu Lichong, Cheng Xiaofeng, Ge Min
Department of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China.
Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Clinical College of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2025 Mar 27;12:1555242. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2025.1555242. eCollection 2025.
Observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the outcomes of multiple arterial grafts (MAG) vs. single arterial grafts (SAG) in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. We conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases for RCTs that directly compared MAG and SAG. The clinical outcomes assessed included all-cause mortality, cardiac-specific mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, stroke, sternal wound complications, and major bleeding. Outcomes were measured using hazard ratios (HR), relative risks (RR), and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Eighteen RCTs involving 10,143 patients were included in the analysis. The follow-up period ranged from 6 months to 12.6 years, and the average age of the patients across the studies ranged between 56.3 and 77.3 years. MAG and SAG did not differ significantly in terms of the incidence of sternal wound complications, major bleeding, or stroke following CABG. However, the MAG group demonstrated a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, MI, and repeat revascularization compared with the SAG group. MAG was associated with higher survival, lower risk of MI, and fewer repeat revascularization. Nonetheless, there were no significant differences in the incidence of sternal wound infections, major bleeding, and stroke between MAG and SAG.
关于冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)中多支动脉移植物(MAG)与单支动脉移植物(SAG)的疗效,观察性研究和随机对照试验(RCT)得出了相互矛盾的结果。我们在多个数据库中全面检索了直接比较MAG和SAG的RCT。评估的临床结局包括全因死亡率、心脏特异性死亡率、心肌梗死(MI)、再次血运重建、中风、胸骨伤口并发症和大出血。结局采用风险比(HR)、相对风险(RR)及相应的95%置信区间(CI)进行衡量。分析纳入了18项涉及10143例患者的RCT。随访期为6个月至12.6年,各研究中患者的平均年龄在56.3岁至77.3岁之间。CABG术后,MAG和SAG在胸骨伤口并发症、大出血或中风的发生率方面无显著差异。然而,与SAG组相比,MAG组的全因死亡率、心脏死亡率、MI和再次血运重建风险较低。MAG与更高的生存率、更低的MI风险和更少的再次血运重建相关。尽管如此,MAG和SAG在胸骨伤口感染、大出血和中风的发生率方面无显著差异。