Farkash Ariel, Gordon Amit, Teich Nadav, Sela Orr, Kakoush Mohammad, Ziv Baran Tomer, Pevni Dmitry, Ben-Gal Yanai
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
J Clin Med. 2025 Jun 23;14(13):4451. doi: 10.3390/jcm14134451.
: To evaluate the outcome of single vs. bilateral internal thoracic artery (SITA vs. BITA) revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary disease referred for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) while on chronic dialysis. : This retrospective analysis included all the patients with multivessel disease on chronic dialysis who underwent isolated CABG in our center during 1996-2021, utilizing SITA or BITA revascularization. We further matched the groups according to patient age and EuroSCORE II ±0.5. : Of the 7547 patients with multivessel disease who underwent CABG, 77 were on chronic dialysis. Of these, 2 had incomplete follow-up data, 58 underwent SITA, and 17 BITA revascularization. Comparing the SITA group with the BITA, the mean age was higher (67.8 vs. 58.6 years, standardized mean difference 1.035); the median (interquartile range) EuroSCORE II was higher (3.73 (1.78-6.23) vs. 1.78 (1.38-3.50), standardized mean difference 0.934); and comorbidities were more prevalent. Early mortality did not differ between the BITA and SITA groups in the unmatched cohort (11.8% vs. 15.5%, > 0.999) or in the matched cohort (12.5% vs. 6.3%, = 0.999). Other early adverse events such as early stroke, myocardial infarction, and bleeding requiring re-exploration were also similar. The median survival was 1.22 ± 0.5 years for the SITA and 5.64 ± 1.50 years for the BITA group. The respective five-year survival rates were 22.5 ± 5.9% and 58.35 ± 13.80%, = 0.005. For the matched cohort, comprising 16 patient pairs, the five-year survival did not differ between the groups (27.8 ± 11.7% vs. 54.7 ± 14.7%, = 0.258). In multivariable analysis, adjusted to EuroSCORE II and age, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for BITA revascularization was insignificant, 0.638 (95% CI 0.25-1.62), = 0.343. The hazard ratios for age and EuroSCORE II were 1.061 (95% CI 1.023-1.101), = 0.002 and 1.155 (95% CI 1.070-1.246), < 0.001. : Despite a trend in favor of BITA utilization, no clear long-term survival benefit was demonstrated for BITA revascularization in patients on chronic dialysis after CABG.
评估在接受冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的多支血管冠状动脉疾病患者且同时处于慢性透析状态时,单支与双侧胸廓内动脉(SITA与BITA)血管重建术的效果。
这项回顾性分析纳入了1996年至2021年期间在我们中心接受单纯CABG且处于慢性透析状态的所有多支血管疾病患者,采用SITA或BITA血管重建术。我们还根据患者年龄和欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统II(EuroSCORE II)±0.5对两组进行匹配。
在接受CABG的7547例多支血管疾病患者中,77例处于慢性透析状态。其中,2例随访数据不完整,58例行SITA血管重建术,17例行BITA血管重建术。将SITA组与BITA组进行比较,SITA组平均年龄更高(67.8岁对58.6岁,标准化均数差1.035);EuroSCORE II中位数(四分位数间距)更高(3.73(1.78 - 6.23)对1.78(1.38 - 3.50),标准化均数差0.934);合并症更常见。在未匹配队列中,BITA组和SITA组早期死亡率无差异(11.8%对15.5%,P>0.999),在匹配队列中也无差异(12.5%对6.3%,P = 0.999)。其他早期不良事件,如早期卒中、心肌梗死和需要再次手术探查的出血情况也相似。SITA组中位生存期为1.22±0.5年,BITA组为5.64±1.50年。各自的五年生存率分别为22.5±5.9%和58.35±13.80%,P = 0.005。对于由16对患者组成的匹配队列,两组五年生存率无差异(27.8±11.7%对54.7±14.7%,P = 0.258)。在多变量分析中,校正EuroSCORE II和年龄后,BITA血管重建术的风险比(95%置信区间)无统计学意义,为0.638(95%CI 0.25 - 1.62),P = 0.343。年龄和EuroSCORE II的风险比分别为1.061(95%CI 1.023 - 1.101),P = 0.002和1.155(95%CI 1.070 - 1.246),P<0.001。
尽管有倾向于使用BITA的趋势,但在CABG术后的慢性透析患者中,BITA血管重建术未显示出明确的长期生存获益。