Choice of conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting: technical, anatomic, and pharmacologic considerations
Abstract
The choice of graft used to bypass stenoses in the coronary circulation is crucial to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery and its success. Herein is a review of the existing literature on CABG grafts, including the discussion of utilization of different CABG grafts, patency of different grafts, and technical and other considerations pertinent to the use of each graft. Lastly, we present special considerations for graft selection in women.
Keywords
INTRODUCTION
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) provides blood flow distal to flow-limiting and non-flow-limiting coronary artery stenoses for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). The choice of graft to bypass these stenoses is therefore of utmost importance to maximize the efficacy and biological benefits of CABG. Herein, we review the current literature on CABG grafts, their utilization in current clinical practice, and the most recent evidence on graft patency. We also review technical and anatomic considerations specific to the use of each graft, including harvesting technique, grafting strategy, and target vessel, among others. Lastly, given that women comprise roughly one-third of the CABG population yet have well-described poorer outcomes than men, we present special considerations for graft selection in women, as graft type and grafting strategy may contribute to this sex disparity.
CABG GRAFTS
Grafts used for CABG can be grouped into two categories: arterial or venous. Arterial grafts include the left internal thoracic and right internal thoracic arteries (LITA and RITA, respectively), which are harvested from the chest wall, and the radial artery (RA), harvested from the upper extremities. The right gastroepiploic artery (RGEA), which is harvested from the abdomen, and the inferior epigastric artery, which is harvested from the abdominal wall, are rarely used in clinical practice[1,2]. Venous grafts include the greater and lesser saphenous veins (SVGs), harvested from the lower extremities, and the cephalic vein, which can be harvested from the upper arm.
USE OF DIFFERENT CABG GRAFTS
The use of the LITA to bypass the left anterior descending artery (LAD) is widely accepted as the gold standard of CABG practice. A preponderance of observational data has demonstrated that the LITA has superior patency and outcomes compared with other grafts, venous or arterial, and accordingly, international professional guidelines give a Class 1 recommendation to use the LITA to bypass the LAD (American College of Cardiology [ACC]/American Heart Association [AHA]/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions [SCAI] Class 1, Level of Evidence B-NR; European Society of Cardiology [ESC]/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery [EACTS]: Class 1, Level of Evidence B)[3,4].
The RA is recommended by international professional guidelines as the second arterial graft (after the LITA to bypass the LAD) to bypass the second most important coronary target (ACC/AHA/SCAI Class 1, Level of Evidence B; ESC/EACTS: Class 1, Level of Evidence B-R)[3,4]. As interest in multiple arterial grafting (MAG), as opposed to single arterial grafting (SAG), has increased in the last two decades, the use rate of the RA has correspondingly increased. It has reported excellent patency rates but has more musculature than other arterial conduits, and therefore, vasospasm is a potential risk. In a recent analysis of the United Kingdom national cardiac surgery database including over 330,000 primary elective CABG patients from 1996-2018[5], 84.4% of patients received SAG and 15.5% received MAG. Of those receiving MAG, the use rate of the RA ranged from 20% at the start of the study period to 60% at the endpoint of the study, with a peak of nearly 80% in 2001. The use rate of the RITA in MAG patients was at its peak of 80% at the start of the study period and fell to 40% at the endpoint of the study, with a nadir of 20% in 2001[5]. An analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database[6] from 2004 to 2015 of over 1.3 million CABG patients found that 10.6% of patients underwent MAG, with 61.4% of MAG patients receiving the RA and 46.0% of the MAG patients receiving the RITA (11,718 patients received both RITA and RA). Current ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines give a weaker recommendation for the use of the RITA than for the RA, stating that it should be performed only in appropriately selected patients and only by surgeons with adequate experience (Class 2a, Level of Evidence B-NR)[3], which is consistent with existing ESC/EACTS recommendations for bilateral ITA grafting[4]. This caution regarding the use of the RITA for MAG may be partly due to the reported increased risk of sternal wound infection seen when bilateral ITA grafting is used[7,8], and should be considered during preoperative planning, particularly in high-risk patients[3].
Despite professional guideline recommendations for the use of other grafts, SVGs remain the most commonly used CABG graft[6], with a global use rate of nearly 90%[6,9]. Its high use rate despite its described poorer patency is likely due to the relative ease of harvesting the SVG, as well as surgeon familiarity, along with possible physician concerns such as spasm or sternal wound infection regarding the use of arterial grafts such as the RA and RITA, respectively[10].
CABG GRAFT FAILURE
While the majority of the data on graft failure, or graft occlusion that prevents blood flow to the myocardial territory targeted for revascularization, has been from older observational studies that are subject to confounders and biases[1,2], there is recently available evidence from contemporary CABG trials. In an analysis of the Radial Artery Database International Alliance (RADIAL) database pooling patient data from six randomized CABG trials (1,091 pooled patients and 2,281 grafts) with mean angiographic follow-up of 5.4 ± 2.4 years[11], the SVG had a 17.5% occlusion rate. In comparison, the occlusion rate was 2.3% for the LITA[11]; all studied LITAs were grafted to the LAD. The occlusion rate of the RA was 9.4%[11], including only RAs that were grafted to the non-LAD distribution. The occlusion rate of the RITA was 13.5%[11], again, including only RITAs that were grafted to the non-LAD distribution.
A network meta-analysis of 18 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) including 6,543 patients and 8,272 grafts with 3.5-year mean angiographic follow-up, the conventionally harvested SVG had a pooled patency rate of 86.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 81.2-90.2), the no-touch SVG had a pooled patency rate of 91.4%
The Radial Artery Patency and Clinical Outcomes (RAPCO) study compared RA outcomes and patency at 10-year follow-up in two trials: one comparing the RA and RITA and one comparing the RA and SVG. The 10-year analysis found that RA patency was 89% and RITA patency was 80% in the RA vs. RITA comparison (graft failure hazard ratio [HR] 0.45, 95%CI: 0.23-0.88), and RA patency was 85% and SVG patency was 71% for the RA vs. SVG comparison (graft failure HR 0.40, 95%CI: 0.15-1.00)[13].
Relationship between clinical outcomes and graft patency
Graft patency has historically been considered an important factor influencing graft choice, largely due to the accepted link between graft patency and clinical outcomes. Most published studies have demonstrated an association between graft failure and non-fatal clinical events, yet this association was derived from older observational studies that did not have protocolized, systematic graft imaging and that are also subject to selection and attrition biases[1,2,14]. A recent individual patient data meta-analysis by Gaudino et al. including seven CABG trials with per-protocol imaging, 4,413 patients, and 13,163 grafts (8,740 SVGs and 4,423 arterial grafts), examined the relationship of graft failure and clinical outcomes and found that graft failure was associated with an increased risk of the composite of myocardial infarction or repeat revascularization, both up until first imaging assessment at a median timepoint of 1.02 years (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.98, 95%CI: 3.54-4.47; P < 0.001) and beyond (adjusted OR 2.59, 95%CI: 1.86-3.62; P < 0.001)[15]. Graft failure was also associated with all-cause death after the first imaging assessment (adjusted OR 2.79. 95%CI: 2.01-3.89;
The relationship between graft failure and clinical events. A recent individual patient data meta-analysis by Gaudino et al. included seven CABG trials with per-protocol imaging and assessed the relationship betweeen graft failure and clinical outcomes up until first imaging assessment (median timepoint of 1.02 years) and at all later timepoints[15]
| Timepoint | All grafts (n = 4,413), % | Graft failure (n = 1,487), % | No graft failure (n = 2,926), % | Adjusted odds ratio (95%CI) | I2 |
| Before imaging | 0% | ||||
| MI or repeat revascularization | 167 (3.8) | 118 (8.0) | 49 (1.7) | 3.98 (3.54-4.47) | 0% |
| MI | 58 (1.3) | 35 (2.3) | 23 (0.8) | 3.54 (1.78-7.01) | 0% |
| Repeat revascularization | 138 (3.1) | 105 (7.1) | 33 (1.1) | 5.02 (3.23-7.82) | |
| After imaging | |||||
| MI or repeat revascularization | 244 (5.5) | 170 (11.4) | 74 (2.5) | 3.46 (1.44-8.34) | 43% |
| MI | 28 (0.6) | 16 (1.1) | 12 (0.4) | 1.45 (0.67-3.14) | 0% |
| Repeat revascularization | 234 (5.3) | 164 (11.0) | 70 (2.4) | 3.80 (1.24-10.83) | 51% |
| Anytime | |||||
| MI or repeat revascularization | 411 (9.3) | 288 (19.4) | 123 (4.2) | 3.47 (2.43-4.95) | 15% |
| MI | 86 (1.9) | 51 (3.4) | 35 (1.2) | 2.57 (1.56-4.25) | 0% |
| Repeat revascularization | 372 (8.4) | 269 (18.1) | 103 (3.5) | 4.25 (2.31-7.80) | 35% |
| All-cause mortality | 223 (5.1) | 163 (11.0) | 60 (2.1) | 2.79 (2.01-3.89) | 0% |
CLINICAL OUTCOMES WITH DIFFERENT CABG GRAFTS
Contemporary RCTs and meta-analyses have also compared the clinical outcomes of CABG by the type of graft used. Utilization of the RA has been associated with excellent clinical outcomes. Results were recently reported from 15-year follow-up of RAPCO, which reported the incidence of the primary outcome of the composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization was lower for the RA compared to RITA (39.4% vs. 48.5%, HR 0.74, 95%CI: 0.55-0.97; P = 0.04) and for the RA compared to SVG (69.2% vs. 73.2%, HR 0.71, 95%CI: 0.52-0.98; P = 0.04)[18]. An individual patient data meta-analysis from the RADIAL database including five CABG RCTs and 1,036 patients[19] found that when compared with the use of the SVG, at 10 years, there was an association between the use of the RA and significantly lower incidence of both the composite of death, MI, or repeat revascularization (HR 0.73, 95%CI: 0.61-0.88; P < 0.001) and with a lower incidence of the composite of death or myocardial infarction (HR 0.77, 95%CI: 0.63-0.94; P = 0.01).
The Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART) was a large, multicenter RCT investigating the outcomes of 3,102 CABG in patients randomized to either single ITA or bilateral ITA grafting. At 10-year follow-up, there was no difference in mortality between patients receiving bilateral ITA grafting (20.3%) and single ITA grafting (21.2%, HR 0.96, 95%CI: 0.82-1.12; P = 0.62). There was also no difference between groups in the composite outcome of mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke (24.9% vs. 27.3%, HR 0.90,
CONSIDERATIONS FOR USE OF THE SVG
Harvesting technique
Early graft failure secondary to acute thrombosis is predominantly observed in vein grafts rather than arterial grafts[21], and injury to the vein graft intima, often incurred intraoperatively during harvesting, is a risk factor for graft failure. The conventional open approach for SVG harvesting removes the perivascular tissue with subsequent manual distension of the graft with heparinized saline up to pressures of
Endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) was first introduced with the aim of decreasing the incidence of local harvest site complications and postoperative pain (the technique has been previously described[29]), but may risk endothelial injury secondary to greater intraoperative manipulation, as discussed above. A meta-analysis of 22 studies (five RCTs) and 27,911 patients with at least one-year follow-up found that local harvest site complications occurred less frequently with EVH than with open vein harvesting (OVH) (0.75% vs. 2.92%, OR 0.19, 95%CI: 0.12-0.30; P < 0.001)[30], and with no difference in all-cause mortality (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.98, 95%CI: 0.48-1.99; P = 0.95) and major adverse cardiac events (IRR 1.01,
External stenting
Late vein graft failure, or that occurring at the first postoperative year or later, is characterized by intimal hyperplasia and atherosclerosis, processes to which vein grafts are particularly susceptible[9,21,34,35]. External, cobalt-chromium mesh stenting devices have been introduced to prevent this process[36-38], and a series of RCTs, the Venous External Support Trials (VEST), were conducted to test these devices. VEST I enrolled 30 patients randomized to receive a single stented SVG to either the right or the circumflex coronary territories (30 grafts), while one or more SVGs were not stented (39 grafts). Intravascular ultrasound assessment found that the area of intimal hyperplasia was smaller in the stented group (mean 4.37 mm2) than in the non-stented group (5.12 mm2; P = 0.04); however, at angiographic follow-up at one year, there was no difference between groups in SVG failure (30.0% vs. 28.2%, P = 0.55)[39]. VEST IV, which reported a 4.5-year follow-up, similarly found no difference in SVG failure rate between stented grafts and those not stented (30.0% vs. 23.0%; P = 0.42)[40]. VEST II studied stented SVGs grafted to the right coronary territory and found that at a three-to-six-month follow-up, there was no difference in SVG patency between stented grafts and those not stented (86.2% vs. 88.8%)[41]. VEST III included 184 patients randomized to receive one stented SVG and found no difference in graft patency between stented grafts and those not stented at two-year follow-up (78.3% vs. 88.8%; P = 0.43)[42].
Anastomotic technique
There is limited and conflicting data on the relationship between the anastomotic technique of SVG grafting and angiographic and clinical outcomes. Both individual anastomosis and sequential anastomosis [Figure 1], which allows for a greater degree of myocardial revascularization by a single graft, may be used to graft the SVG[10]. An observational study of 901 propensity-matched pairs of CABG patients (891 matched pairs of grafts) with median 7.3-year follow-up found a lower risk of graft failure in the sequentially anastomosed SVG group than in the individually anastomosed SVG group (HR 0.69,
Figure 1. Diagram of sequential grafting. Adapted from Nakajima et al.[74].
Pharmacotherapy
The mechanism of early SVG failure is acute graft thrombosis, and preventing it is the target of currently recommended antithrombotics after CABG[9,34,45]. Both American and European professional guidelines recommend the use of aspirin for antithrombosis after CABG, but with slight differences in timing and dosing: The ACC/AHA/SCAI recommendation for pharmacotherapy after CABG and is 100-325 mg of aspirin daily within 6 h of CABG, continued indefinitely, to reduce the risk of SVG closure and adverse cardiac events (Class of Recommendation 1, Level of Evidence A)[3], and the ESC/EACTS recommendation is for 75-100 mg of aspirin within 24 h of CABG or once there are no bleeding concerns (Class of Recommendation 1, Level of Evidence C). However, both recommendations are based on decades-old RCTs[34,46,47]. Recent studies have investigated using an oral P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor) for the prevention of SVG failure, but a study comparing ticagrelor alone with aspirin alone did not reduce the risk of SVG failure at one- and two-year follow-up[48,49]. The addition of ticagrelor to aspirin as a dual antiplatelet regimen after CABG has also been investigated in recent RCTs[50,51]. An individual patient data meta-analysis[50] including four RCTS, 1,316 CABG patients, and 1,668 SVGs compared a ticagrelor and aspirin dual antiplatelet regimen with aspirin monotherapy and found that a ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet regimen was associated with a lower risk of SVG failure (11.2% vs. 20%, OR 0.51, 95%CI: 0.35-0.71; P < 0.001). However, ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet therapy was also associated with an increased risk of clinically important bleeding events (22.1% vs. 8.7%, OR 2.98, 95%CI: 0.35-0.74; P < 0.001)[50]. Since the risk of acute graft thrombosis after CABG is the highest within one month of surgery[45], short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (followed by continued aspirin therapy) may help prevent SVG failure in the first month, but with an attenuated risk of bleeding events compared with long-term dual antiplatelet therapy. The forthcoming ODIN trial (NCT 05997693) will provide important answers on this novel antithrombotic approach.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR USE OF THE LITA
Harvesting technique
Skeletonized ITA harvesting [Figure 2] has been accepted as the standard ITA harvesting technique compared with pedicled ITA harvesting[1,10]. Skeletonization of the ITA may help preserve sternal perfusion[1] and, in observational studies, has been associated with a lower risk of deep sternal wound infection, especially in CABG patients receiving bilateral ITA grafts[1]. Yet recent data suggest that skeletonization may result in lower patency rates and poorer clinical outcomes compared with pedicled harvesting, possibly due to greater intraoperative graft trauma incurred by manipulation during skeletonization[52,53]. A post-hoc analysis of the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial[52] including 282 skeletonized ITA grafts (out of 1,002 CABG patients with ITA grafts) at mean 1.9-year follow-up reported a higher incidence of occlusion of skeletonized ITAs than of pedicled ITAs (9.6% vs. 3.9%, OR 2.41, 95%CI: 1.39-4.0). ITA skeletonization was also associated with higher rates of major adverse cardiac events (cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization) compared with pedicled ITA harvesting: 7.1% vs. 2.1%; adjusted HR 3.19,
Figure 2. (A) Pedicled and (B) Skeletonized ITA Harvesting techniques. ITA: Internal Thoracic Artery. Reproduced from Markman et al.[105].
Anastomotic technique
Individual or sequential anastomosis may be used to graft the LITA[10]. Observational data has shown that there is no difference in patency between the individually anastomosed LITA and the sequentially anastomosed LITA[10,54-57]. A propensity-score matched study of 120 CABG patients reported no difference in LITA patency between patients receiving sequential LITA grafting to the diagonal artery and then the LAD and those receiving individual LITA grafting to the LAD (anastomotic patency: 99% for the diagonal site, 98% for the LAD site, and 98% for the individual LAD site; P > 0.05). At 2.25-year follow-up, there was no difference between groups in the incidence of all-cause death (OR 0.79, 95%CI: 0.22-27, P = 0.72) and repeat revascularization (OR 0.66, 95%CI: 0.13-4.12)[57].
Both the configuration of the anastomosis, either in a diamond with the graft at a right angle to the coronary target, or with the graft parallel to the coronary target, and target coronary artery stenosis may influence sequential LITA patency. A retrospective study of 452 CABG patients that compared individual and sequential LITA grafting found higher patency of the distal segment of the sequential graft with the diamond configuration compared with the parallel configuration (98.4% vs. 90.7%; P = 0.09)[56]. However, the diamond configuration is more technically challenging, and improper configuration can compromise the graft[10]. In addition, lower degrees of target coronary artery stenosis have been associated with greater competitive flow and sequential arterial graft failure. A post-hoc analysis of the IMPAG trial by graft configuration and location[58] found that FFR values < 0.80 for the first anastomosis and < 0.77 for the second anastomosis of sequential grafts to the anterior coronary circulation were associated with poorer graft functionality, compared with FFR values < 0.74 for individual grafts. FFR values < 0.81 for the first anastomosis and < 0.78 for the second anastomosis of sequential grafts to the posterolateral coronary circulation were associated with poorer graft functionality, compared with FFR values < 0.79 for individual grafts. The degree of target coronary artery stenosis should be taken into consideration prior to making the decision to proceed with sequential arterial grafting.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR USE OF THE RA
Harvest technique
RA harvesting can be performed using either open RA harvesting (ORAH) or endoscopic RA harvesting (ERAH) techniques. ORAH requires a 15-18 cm surgical incision, while ERAH requires two 2-3 cm incisions (the technique has been described in detail previously)[59]. ERAH has been found to reduce local harvest site complications. An analysis of 10 studies (four RCTs, six observational) and 1,368 patients found a lower risk of wound infection with ERAH compared with ORAH (OR 0.28, 95%CI: 0.13-0.63;
Graft configuration
The RA may be anastomosed directly to the aorta, or as a composite with other grafts[10], typically the ITA as a Y-graft[67]. While the majority of available evidence about the RA is derived from RA-aortic anastomoses[67], little evidence to date suggesting that RA graft configuration influences patency. In a retrospective study of 228 CABG patients receiving the RA (131 grafted directly to the aorta), there was no difference between the patency of the RA grafted directly to the proximal aorta (92.0%) and the RA grafted to the ITA (86.3%; P = 0.81) at mean 6.5-year follow-up[68].
Target vessels
The RA is at higher risk of vasospasm and competitive flow than other conduits if grafted to coronary target vessels with only mild or moderate degrees of stenosis[69-71]. A retrospective study of 123 CABG patients (382 distal anastomoses) found an overall RA patency of 92% at a mean angiographic follow-up of 2.7 years; however, RA patency was lower when grafted to the right coronary circulation than to the left(79.4% vs. 94.4%; P < 0.05) and was also lower when grafted to targets with 50%-90% stenosis than with > 90% stenosis (83.3% vs. 98.0%; P < 0.05)[70].
Sequential grafting
Evidence on the effect of individual vs. sequential grafting on RA patency is limited. A recent study of 208 CABG patients (125 with individual grafting) and 293 anastomoses reported no difference in individually grafted or sequentially grafted RA patency at 10-year follow-up (88.7% vs. 87.4%; P = 0.88)[72]. However, another retrospective observational study of 410 CABG patients receiving the RA with five-year mean angiographic follow-up found that sequential RA grafting was associated with better patency compared with individual grafting (HR 2.53, 95%CI: 1.29-5.28; P = 0.006)[73]. The degree of target vessel stenosis may mediate the patency of the sequentially grafted RA. A recent study of 432 patients (1,221 distal RA sequential anastomoses) found that patency was higher for the sequentially grafted RA when grafted to coronary arteries with > 76% stenosis than coronary arteries with 51%-75% stenosis (88.6% vs. 59.1%; P < 0.001)[74].
Pharmacotherapy
The RA is a highly muscular conduit with a potential risk of vasospasm, demonstrated in both pharmacologic studies and reporting from RA access during coronary angiography and stenting[66,75], and its prevention is the target of antispasm medical treatment with calcium channel blockers (CCBs). However, the available data on the effect of CCB on the RA are mixed. Two small RCTs, one examining the effect of discontinuing CCBs after the first postoperative year[76] and one examining the effect of no CCB in the early postoperative period[77], found no difference in angiographic or clinical outcomes at one-year and five-year follow-up, respectively. A post-hoc analysis including 440 CABG patients receiving the RA from the Radial Artery Patency Study (RAPS) found that compliance with postoperative CCV regimen did not affect the incidence of the highest degree of RA graft spasm, demonstrated by string sign[78]. However, in a post-hoc analysis of 732 patients from the RADIAL database, CCB therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (HR: 0.52, 95%CI: 0.31-0.89, P = 0.02) and RA graft occlusion (HR: 0.20, 95%CI: 0.08-0.49, P < 0.001)[79]. In addition, if antispasm therapy is used, the choice of the best CCB is unclear. The aforementioned RADIAL analysis reported that compared with no CCB, amlodipine
CONSIDERATIONS FOR USE OF THE RITA
Graft configuration
The RITA can be used as a free graft from the aorta or as an in-situ graft. A longitudinal single-center study of over 1,331 CABG patients found that the patency of the in-situ RITA was 91% and the patency of the free RITA from the aorta was also 91% at 15-year follow-up[80]. In an RCT of 304 CABG patients receiving BITA grafting (147 in-situ, 152 Y-graft), there was no difference in RITA anastomotic patency by configuration at six-month follow-up (97.0% vs. 96.0%, P = 0.69)[81], and no difference between groups in major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events, defined as mortality, need for reoperation, ICU length of stay, and all cardiovascular morbidity (P > 0.05 for all). At the mean 3.5-year angiographic follow-up, there was no difference between the in-situ RITA (93%) and Y-graft (96.5%; P = 0.10) patency. However, at a mean seven-year follow-up, the in-situ RITA had a higher incidence of major adverse cerebral and cardiovascular events (34% vs. 25%)[82]. An additional consideration for the use of the in-situ RITA is the manner in which it is directed to the target vessels: if it crosses the midline anteriorly, there is an increased risk of injury during sternal reentry at reoperation. Directing the RITA via the transverse sinus may limit the target vessels of the RITA (i.e., it may only reach and revascularize the left circumflex branches).
Target vessels
While the RITA has well-documented poorer patency than the LITA, the target coronary vessel may influence RITA patency. The aforementioned longitudinal single-center study of 1,331 patients with bilateral ITA grafting and 15-year imaging follow-up found that there was no difference between patency of the RITA and the LITA in instances when the RITA was grafted to the LAD (94.4% vs. 95.4%; P = 0.50); however, the patency of the RITA was significantly lower when grafted to non-LAD coronary targets
ON-AND OFF-PUMP CABG AND GRAFT PATENCY
While the majority of CABG surgeries in the United States and Europe are performed with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass, off-pump CABG is an alternative approach that may avoid the negative effects of cardiopulmonary bypass on the patient[83]. The results of randomized trials of on- vs. off-pump CABG with angiographic follow-up have been mixed[84-87]. The Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial included 2,203 patients randomized to on- or off-pump CABG and at one-year follow-up found a higher patency rate in arterial (91.4% vs. 85.8%; P = 0.003) and vein (80.4% vs. 72.7%; P < 0.001) grafts[86]. However, the CABG Off or On Pump Revascularization Study (CORONARY) included 4,752 patients randomized to on- or off-pump CABG (157 of whom had imaging at one-year follow-up) and found the proportion of non-occluded grafts was similar between groups (on-pump 95%, off-pump 89%; P = 0.09)[87]. A recent study-level meta-analysis of 16 RCTs, 6,227 patients, and 11,641 grafts[88] found that off-pump CABG was associated with a higher risk of graft failure (relative risk 1.31, 95%CI: 1.17-1.46; P < 0.001); this increased risk was pronounced at follow-up one year after surgery and dissipated and longer follow-up. In addition, several of the included studies had high (> 10%) crossover rate, possibly skewing results and suggesting a question of physician expertise with off-pump CABG.
MEDICAL THERAPY, CLINICAL OUTCOMES, AND GRAFT PATENCY
The role of medical therapy for CABG to maximize the benefits of revascularization cannot be overstated, irrespective of the choice of conduit. Antithrombotic regimens after CABG, as discussed in greater detail earlier in the text, play a crucial role in maintaining graft patency. The use of postoperative statins and antihypertensive therapy has been associated with improved clinical outcomes after CABG in numerous large-scale, retrospective studies[89-91]. Statin use has also been associated with a lower incidence of vein graft occlusion in CABG patients[91,92], although the optimal dosing is not yet fully elucidated. The Aggressive Cholesterol Therapy to Inhibit Vein Graft Events (ACTIVE) trial[93] found that there was no difference in the incidence of vein graft occlusion at one-year follow-up between patients randomized to high-dose
CONDUIT SELECTION IN WOMEN
Women have well-reported worse outcomes than men after CABG, including higher mortality and higher rates of postoperative major adverse events[94,95]. While the etiology of the sex disparity in outcomes is likely multifactorial, graft selection and strategies have been shown to differ between women and men, and may play a role in this outcomes disparity[96]. A retrospective study of 57,943 CABG patients (19% women)[96] found that incomplete revascularization, which was associated with lower survival in both sexes, was more common in women (26% vs. 22%; P < 0.001). Women received fewer arterial grafts, were less likely to receive total arterial revascularization, and more frequently received SVG-only revascularization in lieu of any arterial grafting. A large retrospective study including more than one million CABG patients found that women were less likely to receive LITA grafting to the LAD (adjusted OR 0.79, 95%CI: 0.75-0.83; P < 0.001), the gold standard of CABG, than men[97]. In addition, women were found to be less likely to receive MAG than men (adjusted OR 0.78, 95%CI: 0.75-0.81; P < 0.001).
It is also unclear if women gain the same benefits from MAG as do men. In a retrospective cohort study of the Ontario database including 9,135 women undergoing CABG[98], MAG was associated with a heightened risk of 30-day mortality (HR 1.48, 95%CI: 1.23-1.79); however, there was improved survival at nine years in women who received MAG (4.0% incremental improvement in survival over SAG). In a propensity-matched study from the New York State Cardiac Surgery Reporting System from 2005-2014, Gaudino et al. found that men who received MAG had a mortality benefit compared to men who received SAG (adjusted HR 0.80, 95%CI: 0.73-0.87; P < 0.001), a similar benefit was not seen among women who received MAG (adjusted HR 0.99, 95%CI: 0.84-1.15; P = 0.85)[99]. Low-risk patients of both sexes who received MAG had a lower risk of mortality and morbidity than those receiving SAG (men: adjusted HR 0.80, 95%CI: 0.73-0.89;
The decision of which arterial graft should be used in women is also distinct from the decision-making process in men. Bilateral ITA grafting in women has been associated with sternal wound infection[96,102]; a retrospective study of 2,979 CABG patients (10% women) found that women who received BITA had a higher incidence of postoperative mediastinal infection compared with men who received BITA (3.3% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.02). In addition, the same study found that the benefit of using the RA as the second arterial graft was heightened in women (HR 0.51, 95%CI: 0.36-0.72) compared with men (HR 0.84,
Lastly, women remain underrepresented in CABG trials[103], calling into question the applicability of the vast majority of cardiovascular and cardiac surgery evidence. In a recent study-level meta-analysis[104] of sex differences in SVG patency, no difference between the sexes was found (incidence rate ratio 0.96,
CONCLUSIONS
The choice of the graft to use in CABG can influence the efficacy of the surgery and the clinical benefits that the patient derives from CABG. There are many considerations for the choice of CABG graft: patency of the graft, its associated clinical outcomes, the amount of native coronary artery stenosis, the planned target vessel, and technical considerations such as harvesting and anastomotic techniques. In addition, the baseline characteristics and risk profile of the individual patient in which the graft is used should be accounted for in order to provide the best patient-centered care.
DECLARATIONS
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization, writing, research, revision: Harik L
Writing, revision, conceptualization: An KR
Research, revision, writing: Dimagli A, Dell'Aquila M
Research, writing: Perezgrovas-Olaria R, Soletti G Jr
Research, writing, editing: Rossi C
Research, revision: Cancelli G, Leith J
Editing, conceptualization, revision, writing: Gaudino M
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Financial support and sponsorship
Harik L is partially supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: T32-HL160520-01A1).
Conflicts of interest
All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2023.
REFERENCES
1. Harik L, Sandner S, Gaudino M. Unanswered questions on coronary artery graft patency and clinical outcomes. Curr Opin Cardiol 2023;38:441-6.
2. Gaudino M, Antoniades C, Benedetto U, et al. Mechanisms, consequences, and prevention of coronary graft failure. Circulation 2017;136:1749-64.
3. Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: executive summary: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 2022;145:e4-17.
4. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019;40:87-165.
5. Chan J, Dimagli A, Dong T, Fudulu DP, Sinha S, Angelini GD. Trend and factors associated with multiple arterial revascularization in coronary artery bypass grafting in the UK. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022;62:ezac284.
6. Schwann TA, Habib RH, Wallace A, et al. Operative outcomes of multiple-arterial versus single-arterial coronary bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2018;105:1109-19.
7. Taggart DP, Altman DG, Gray AM, et al. Randomized trial of bilateral versus single internal-thoracic-artery grafts. N Engl J Med 2016;375:2540-9.
8. Lazar HL. The risk of mediastinitis and deep sternal wound infections with single and bilateral, pedicled and skeletonized internal thoracic arteries. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2018;7:663-72.
9. Caliskan E, de Souza DR, Böning A, et al. Saphenous vein grafts in contemporary coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Nat Rev Cardiol 2020;17:155-69.
10. Dimagli A, Soletti G Jr, Harik L, et al. Angiographic outcomes for arterial and venous conduits used in CABG. J Clin Med 2023;12:2022.
11. Gaudino M, Benedetto U, Fremes SE, et al. Angiographic outcome of coronary artery bypass grafts: the radial artery database international alliance. Ann Thorac Surg 2020;109:688-94.
12. Deng MX, Lia H, Lee G, et al. Angiographic patency of coronary artery bypass conduits: an updated network meta-analysis of randomized trials. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg 2022;37:7-31.
13. Buxton BF, Hayward PA, Raman J, et al. Long-term results of the RAPCO trials. Circulation 2020;142:1330-8.
14. Gaudino M, Di Franco A, Bhatt DL, et al. The association between coronary graft patency and clinical status in patients with coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 2021;42:1433-41.
15. Gaudino M, Sandner S, An KR, et al. Graft failure after coronary artery bypass grafting and its association with patient characteristics and clinical events: a pooled individual patient data analysis of clinical trials with imaging follow-up. Circulation 2023;148:1305-15.
16. Glineur D, Grau JB, Etienne PY, et al. Impact of preoperative fractional flow reserve on arterial bypass graft anastomotic function: the IMPAG trial. Eur Heart J 2019;40:2421-8.
17. Harskamp RE, Alexander JH, Ferguson TB Jr, et al. Frequency and predictors of internal mammary artery graft failure and subsequent clinical outcomes: insights from the project of ex-vivo vein graft engineering via transfection (PREVENT) IV trial. Circulation 2016;133:131-8.
18. Hamilton GW, Raman J, Moten S, et al. Radial artery vs. internal thoracic artery or saphenous vein grafts: 15-year results of the RAPCO trials. Eur Heart J 2023;44:2406-8.
19. Gaudino M, Benedetto U, Fremes S, et al. Association of radial artery graft vs saphenous vein graft with long-term cardiovascular outcomes among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2020;324:179-87.
20. Taggart DP, Benedetto U, Gerry S, et al. Bilateral versus single internal-thoracic-artery grafts at 10 years. N Engl J Med 2019;380:437-46.
21. Harskamp RE, Lopes RD, Baisden CE, de Winter RJ, Alexander JH. Saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass surgery: pathophysiology, management, and future directions. Ann Surg 2013;257:824-33.
22. Angelini GD, Passani SL, Breckenridge IM, Newby AC. Nature and pressure dependence of damage induced by distension of human saphenous vein coronary artery bypass grafts. Cardiovasc Res 1987;21:902-7.
23. Souza D. A new no-touch preparation technique. Technical notes. Scand J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996;30:41-4.
24. Souza DS, Johansson B, Bojö L, et al. Harvesting the saphenous vein with surrounding tissue for CABG provides long-term graft patency comparable to the left internal thoracic artery: results of a randomized longitudinal trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;132:373-8.
25. Souza DS, Dashwood MR, Tsui JC, et al. Improved patency in vein grafts harvested with surrounding tissue: results of a randomized study using three harvesting techniques. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;73:1189-95.
26. Deb S, Singh SK, de Souza D, et al. SUPERIOR SVG: no touch saphenous harvesting to improve patency following coronary bypass grafting (a multi-Centre randomized control trial, NCT01047449). J Cardiothorac Surg 2019;14:85.
27. Tian M, Wang X, Sun H, et al. No-touch versus conventional vein harvesting techniques at 12 months after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: multicenter randomized, controlled trial. Circulation 2021;144:1120-9.
28. Ragnarsson S, Janiec M, Modrau IS, et al. No-touch saphenous vein grafts in coronary artery surgery (SWEDEGRAFT): rationale and design of a multicenter, prospective, registry-based randomized clinical trial. Am Heart J 2020;224:17-24.
29. Davis Z, Jacobs HK, Zhang M, Thomas C, Castellanos Y. Endoscopic vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: technique and outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1998;116:228-35.
30. Li G, Zhang Y, Wu Z, Liu Z, Zheng J. Mid-term and long-term outcomes of endoscopic versus open vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2019;72:167-73.
31. Deppe AC, Liakopoulos OJ, Choi YH, et al. Endoscopic vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review with meta-analysis of 27,789 patients. J Surg Res 2013;180:114-24.
32. Kodia K, Patel S, Weber MP, et al. Graft patency after open versus endoscopic saphenous vein harvest in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2018;7:586-97.
33. Woodward LC, Antoniades C, Taggart DP. Intraoperative vein graft preservation: what is the solution? Ann Thorac Surg 2016;102:1736-46.
34. Harik L, Perezgrovas-Olaria R, Soletti G Jr, et al. Graft thrombosis after coronary artery bypass surgery and current practice for prevention. Front Cardiovasc Med 2023;10:1125126.
35. Motwani JG, Topol EJ. Aortocoronary saphenous vein graft disease: pathogenesis, predisposition, and prevention. Circulation 1998;97:916-31.
36. Wan S, Arifi AA, Chan MC, et al. Differential, time-dependent effects of perivenous application of fibrin glue on medial thickening in porcine saphenous vein grafts. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;29:742-6.
37. Schoettler J, Jussli-Melchers J, Grothusen C, et al. Highly flexible nitinol mesh to encase aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts: first clinical experiences and angiographic results nine months postoperatively. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2011;13:396-400.
38. Murphy GJ, Newby AC, Jeremy JY, Baumbach A, Angelini GD. A randomized trial of an external Dacron sheath for the prevention of vein graft disease: the extent study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;134:504-5.
39. Taggart DP, Ben Gal Y, Lees B, et al. A randomized trial of external stenting for saphenous vein grafts in coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2015;99:2039-45.
40. Taggart DP, Webb CM, Desouza A, et al. Long-term performance of an external stent for saphenous vein grafts: the VEST IV trial. J Cardiothorac Surg 2018;13:117.
41. Taggart DP, Amin S, Djordjevic J, et al. A prospective study of external stenting of saphenous vein grafts to the right coronary artery: the VEST II study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017;51:952-8.
42. Taggart DP, Gavrilov Y, Krasopoulos G, et al. External stenting and disease progression in saphenous vein grafts two years after coronary artery bypass grafting: a multicenter randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022;164:1532-41.e2.
43. Park SJ, Kim HJ, Kim JB, et al. Sequential versus individual saphenous vein grafting during coronary arterial bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2020;109:1165-73.
44. Mehta RH, Ferguson TB, Lopes RD, et al. Saphenous vein grafts with multiple versus single distal targets in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: one-year graft failure and five-year outcomes from the Project of ex-vivo vein graft engineering via transfection (PREVENT) IV trial. Circulation 2011;124:280-8.
45. Xenogiannis I, Zenati M, Bhatt DL, et al. Saphenous vein graft failure: from pathophysiology to prevention and treatment strategies. Circulation 2021;144:728-45.
46. Goldman S, Zadina K, Moritz T, et al. Long-term patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary artery grafts after coronary artery bypass surgery: results from a department of veterans affairs cooperative study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:2149-56.
47. Lorenz RL, Weber M, Kotzur J, et al. Improved aortocoronary bypass patency by low-dose aspirin (100 mg daily). Effects on platelet aggregation and thromboxane formation. Lancet 1984;323:1261-4.
48. Kulik A, Abreu AM, Boronat V, Kouchoukos NT, Ruel M. Ticagrelor versus aspirin and vein graft patency after coronary bypass: a randomized trial. J Card Surg 2022;37:563-70.
49. Kulik A, Abreu AM, Boronat V, Kouchoukos NT, Ruel M. Ticagrelor versus aspirin 2 years after coronary bypass: observational analysis from the TARGET trial. J Card Surg 2022;37:1969-77.
50. Sandner S, Redfors B, Angiolillo DJ, et al. Association of dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor with vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2022;328:554-62.
51. Solo K, Lavi S, Kabali C, et al. Antithrombotic treatment after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2019;367:l5476.
52. Lamy A, Browne A, Sheth T, et al. Skeletonized vs pedicled internal mammary artery graft harvesting in coronary artery bypass surgery: a post hoc analysis from the COMPASS trial. JAMA Cardiol 2021;6:1042-9.
53. Gaudino M, Audisio K, Rahouma M, et al. Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes of skeletonized vs pedicled internal thoracic artery harvesting techniques in the arterial revascularization trial. JAMA Cardiol 2021;6:1380-6.
54. Robinson BM, Paterson HS, Naidoo R, Dhurandhar V, Denniss AR. Bilateral internal thoracic artery composite Y grafts: analysis of 464 angiograms in 296 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;101:974-80.
55. Bakay C, Onan B, Korkmaz AA, Onan IS, Özkara A. Sequential in situ left internal thoracic artery grafting to the circumflex and right coronary artery areas. Ann Thorac Surg 2013;95:63-70.
56. Ohira S, Doi K, Okawa K, et al. Safety and efficacy of sequential left internal thoracic artery grafting to left circumflex area. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;102:766-73.
57. Ji Q, Shi Y, Xia L, et al. Revascularization of left coronary system using a skeletonized left internal mammary artery - sequential vs. separate grafting. Circ J 2017;82:102-9.
58. Glineur D, Rahouma M, Grau JB, et al. FFR cutoff by arterial graft configuration and location: IMPAG trial insights. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2020;13:143-4.
59. Casselman FP, La Meir M, Cammu G, et al. Initial experience with an endoscopic radial artery harvesting technique. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004;128:463-6.
60. Ferdinand FD, MacDonald JK, Balkhy HH, et al. Endoscopic conduit harvest in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: an ISMICS systematic review and consensus conference statements. Innovations 2017;12:301-19.
61. Kiaii BB, Swinamer SA, Fox SA, Stitt L, Quantz MA, Novick RJ. A prospective randomized study of endoscopic versus conventional harvesting of the radial artery. Innovations 2017;12:231-8.
62. Shapira OM, Eskenazi BR, Anter E, et al. Endoscopic versus conventional radial artery harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: functional and histologic assessment of the conduit. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006;131:388-94.
63. Medalion B, Tobar A, Yosibash Z, et al. Vasoreactivity and histology of the radial artery: comparison of open versus endoscopic approaches. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008;34:845-9.
64. Gaudino MF, Lorusso R, Ohmes LB, et al. Open radial artery harvesting better preserves endothelial function compared to the endoscopic approach. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2019;29:561-7.
65. Rahouma M, Kamel M, Benedetto U, et al. Endoscopic versus open radial artery harvesting: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled and propensity matched studies. J Card Surg 2017;32:334-41.
66. Kristic I, Lukenda J. Radial artery spasm during transradial coronary procedures. Available from: https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/jic/articles/radial-artery-spasm-during-transradial-coronary-procedures [Last accessed on 28 Nov 2023].
67. Gaudino M, Bakaeen FG, Sandner S, et al. Expert systematic review on the choice of conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting: endorsed by the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2023;64:ezad163.
68. Gaudino M, Alessandrini F, Pragliola C, et al. Effect of target artery location and severity of stenosis on mid-term patency of aorta-anastomosed vs. internal thoracic artery-anastomosed radial artery grafts. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:424-8.
69. van Son JA, Smedts F, Vincent JG, van Lier HJ, Kubat K. Comparative anatomic studies of various arterial conduits for myocardial revascularization. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1990;99:703-7.
70. Yie K, Na CY, Oh SS, Kim JH, Shinn SH, Seo HJ. Angiographic results of the radial artery graft patency according to the degree of native coronary stenosis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2008;33:341-8.
71. Gaudino M, Tondi P, Benedetto U, et al. Radial artery as a coronary artery bypass conduit: 20-year results. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;68:603-10.
72. Kasahara H, Shin H, Takahashi T, Murata S, Mori M. Comparison of patency of single and sequential radial artery grafting in coronary artery bypass. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2022;34:515-22.
73. Hosono M, Murakami T, Hirai H, Sasaki Y, Suehiro S, Shibata T. The risk factor analysis for the late graft failure of radial artery graft in coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019;25:32-8.
74. Nakajima H, Kobayashi J, Toda K, et al. A 10-year angiographic follow-up of competitive flow in sequential and composite arterial grafts. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011;40:399-404.
75. Chardigny C, Jebara VA, Acar J, et al. Vasoreactivity of the radial artery. Comparison with the internal mammary and gastroepiploic arteries with implications for coronary artery surgery. Circulation 1993;88:II115-27.
76. Gaudino M, Glieca F, Luciani N, Alessandrini F, Possati G. Clinical and angiographic effects of chronic calcium channel blocker therapy continued beyond first postoperative year in patients with radial artery grafts: results of a prospective randomized investigation. Circulation 2001;104:I64-7.
77. Gaudino M, Luciani N, Nasso G, Salica A, Canosa C, Possati G. Is postoperative calcium channel blocker therapy needed in patients with radial artery grafts? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;129:532-5.
78. Miwa S, Desai N, Koyama T, Chan E, Cohen EA, Fremes SE. Radial Artery Patency Study Investigators. Radial artery angiographic string sign: clinical consequences and the role of pharmacologic therapy. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;81:112-8; discussion 119.
79. Gaudino M, Benedetto U, Fremes SE, et al. Effect of calcium-channel blocker therapy on radial artery grafts after coronary bypass surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;73:2299-306.
80. Bakaeen FG, Ghandour H, Ravichandren K, et al. Right internal thoracic artery patency is affected more by target choice than conduit configuration. Ann Thorac Surg 2022;114:458-66.
81. Glineur D, Hanet C, Poncelet A, et al. Comparison of bilateral internal thoracic artery revascularization using in situ or Y graft configurations: a prospective randomized clinical, functional, and angiographic midterm evaluation. Circulation 2008;118:S216-21.
82. Glineur D, Boodhwani M, Hanet C, et al. Bilateral internal thoracic artery configuration for coronary artery bypass surgery: a prospective randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:e003518.
83. Parissis H, Ramesh BC, Al-Alao B. Off-pump coronary surgery: current justifications. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;62:660-70.
84. Sousa Uva M, Cavaco S, Oliveira AG, et al. Early graft patency after off-pump and on-pump coronary bypass surgery: a prospective randomized study. Eur Heart J 2010;31:2492-9.
85. Houlind K, Fenger-Grøn M, Holme SJ, et al. Graft patency after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery is inferior even with identical heparinization protocols: results from the Danish on-pump versus off-pump randomization study (DOORS). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;148:1812-9.e2.
86. Hattler B, Messenger JC, Shroyer AL, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery is associated with worse arterial and saphenous vein graft patency and less effective revascularization: results from the Veterans affairs randomized on/off bypass (ROOBY) trial. Circulation 2012;125:2827-35.
87. Noiseux N, Stevens LM, Chartrand-Lefebvre C, et al. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: graft patency assessment with coronary computed tomographic angiography: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled pilot study. J Thorac Imaging 2017;32:370-7.
88. Zhou Z, Fu G, Feng K, et al. Randomized evidence on graft patency after off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: an updated meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2022;98:106212.
89. Björklund E, Nielsen SJ, Hansson EC, et al. Secondary prevention medications after coronary artery bypass grafting and long-term survival: a population-based longitudinal study from the SWEDEHEART registry. Eur Heart J 2020;41:1653-61.
90. Kurlansky P, Herbert M, Prince S, Mack M. Coronary artery bypass graft versus percutaneous coronary intervention: meds matter: impact of adherence to medical therapy on comparative outcomes. Circulation 2016;134:1238-46.
91. Pan E, Nielsen SJ, Mennander A, et al. Statins for secondary prevention and major adverse events after coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022;164:1875-86.e4.
92. Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Trial Investigators. The effect of aggressive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and low-dose anticoagulation on obstructive changes in saphenous-vein coronary-artery bypass grafts. N Engl J Med 1997;336:153-62.
93. Kulik A, Abreu AM, Boronat V, Ruel M. Intensive versus moderate statin therapy and early graft occlusion after coronary bypass surgery: the aggressive cholesterol therapy to inhibit vein graft events randomized clinical trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019;157:151-61.e1.
94. Gaudino M, Chadow D, Rahouma M, et al. Operative outcomes of women undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery in the US, 2011 to 2020. JAMA Surg 2023;158:494-502.
95. Alam M, Lee VV, Elayda MA, et al. Association of gender with morbidity and mortality after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. A propensity score matched analysis. Int J Cardiol 2013;167:180-4.
96. Attia T, Koch CG, Houghtaling PL, Blackstone EH, Sabik EM, Sabik JF 3rd. Does a similar procedure result in similar survival for women and men undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017;153:571-9.e9.
97. Jawitz OK, Lawton JS, Thibault D, et al. Sex differences in coronary artery bypass grafting techniques: a society of thoracic surgeons database analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2022;113:1979-88.
98. Rubens FD, Wells GA, Coutinho T, Eddeen AB, Sun LY. Sex differences after coronary artery bypass grafting with a second arterial conduit. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022;163:686-95.e10.
99. Gaudino M, Samadashvili Z, Hameed I, Chikwe J, Girardi LN, Hannan EL. Differences in long-term outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting using single vs multiple arterial grafts and the association with sex. JAMA Cardiol 2020;6:401-9.
100. Gaudino M, Bairey Merz CN, Sandner S, et al. Randomized comparison of the outcome of single versus multiple arterial grafts trial (ROMA):women-a trial dedicated to women to improve coronary bypass outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2023:S0022-5223(23)00525. Online ahead of print
101. Gaudino M, Fremes SE, Mehran R, Bairey Merz CN, ROMA:Women Steering Committee and Investigators. ROMA:women: innovative approaches for the first cardiac surgery trial in women. Circulation 2023;148:1289-91.
102. Vrancic JM, Navia DO, Espinoza JC, et al. Is sex a risk factor for death in patients with bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2019;158:1345-53.e1.
103. Gaudino M, Di Mauro M, Fremes SE, Di Franco A. Representation of women in randomized trials in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2021;10:e020513.
104. Lehtinen ML, Harik L, Soletti G, et al. Sex differences in saphenous vein graft patency: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Card Surg 2022;37:4573-8.
Cite This Article
Export citation file: BibTeX | RIS
OAE Style
Harik L, An KR, Dimagli A, Perezgrovas-Olaria R, Soletti GJ, Leith J, Dell'Aquila M, Rossi C, Cancelli G, Gaudino M. Choice of conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting: technical, anatomic, and pharmacologic considerations. Vessel Plus 2023;7:30. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1209.2023.124
AMA Style
Harik L, An KR, Dimagli A, Perezgrovas-Olaria R, Soletti GJ, Leith J, Dell'Aquila M, Rossi C, Cancelli G, Gaudino M. Choice of conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting: technical, anatomic, and pharmacologic considerations. Vessel Plus. 2023; 7: 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1209.2023.124
Chicago/Turabian Style
Harik, Lamia, Kevin R. An, Arnaldo Dimagli, Roberto Perezgrovas-Olaria, Giovanni Jr Soletti, Jordan Leith, Michele Dell'Aquila, Camilla Rossi, Gianmarco Cancelli, Mario Gaudino. 2023. "Choice of conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting: technical, anatomic, and pharmacologic considerations" Vessel Plus. 7: 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1209.2023.124
ACS Style
Harik, L.; An KR.; Dimagli A.; Perezgrovas-Olaria R.; Soletti GJ.; Leith J.; Dell'Aquila M.; Rossi C.; Cancelli G.; Gaudino M. Choice of conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting: technical, anatomic, and pharmacologic considerations. Vessel Plus. 2023, 7, 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1209.2023.124
About This Article
Special Issue
Copyright
Data & Comments
Data
Cite This Article 6 clicks
Like This Article 5
likes
Comments
Comments must be written in English. Spam, offensive content, impersonation, and private information will not be permitted. If any comment is reported and identified as inappropriate content by OAE staff, the comment will be removed without notice. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact us at support@oaepublish.com.