Meta-analysis shows reduced mortality with multiple arterial grafting in coronary artery bypass, suggesting broader adoption of this approach may improve patient outcomes.
Introduction Surgical revascularization through coronary artery bypass is a widely accepted approach for treating diseases affecting multiple coronary vessels. While the standard approach uses a single arterial graft combined with vein grafts, using numerous arterial grafts may improve long-term outcomes. Although supported by observational data and guideline recommendations, the broader adoption of multiple arterial grafting has been limited due to a lack of definitive randomized trial evidence and uncertainties in specific patient subgroups. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare long-term survival in patients receiving multiple versus single arterial grafts during coronary artery bypass surgery. Twenty-seven studies (including one randomized trial) involving more than one million patients were included. The primary outcome was long-term all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed based on age, sex, diabetes status, graft conduit type, extent of arterial revascularization, and left ventricular function. Meta-regression examined the impact of patient characteristics. Results Multiple arterial grafting was associated with a significant reduction in long-term mortality compared to single arterial grafting. The pooled hazard ratio indicated an approximate 20% relative reduction in mortality. This survival benefit was consistent across all evaluated subgroups. Meta-regression did not identify any patient characteristic that significantly altered the benefit of multiple arterial grafting. No significant publication bias was detected. Conclusion Multiple arterial grafting is associated with improved long-term survival in coronary artery bypass surgery. These findings support the broader implementation of this strategy in suitable patients while emphasizing the need for individualized surgical decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdillah et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: