Why the study?
Does sequential saphenous vein grafting compared to single grafting improve graft flow and reduce treatment failure in patients with proximal critical circumflex lesions?
Does sequential saphenous vein grafting compared to single grafting improve graft flow and reduce treatment failure in patients with proximal critical circumflex lesions?
Sequential saphenous vein grafting of the circumflex system provides superior graft flow and flow reserve compared to single grafting, potentially reducing mid-term treatment failure.
Sequential SV-CABG may be preferred for proximal circumflex lesions to optimize graft performance; extends RCT evidence for sequential over single vein grafting.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate if patients with proximal critical circumflex (CX) lesions did better with single SV-CABG on the best obtuse marginal (OM), or with sequential SV-CABG on two OM branches. DESIGN: Ninety patients were prospectively randomised to single SV-CABG on the best OM (sSV-CABG-45 patients; Group A) or to sequential SV-CABG on 2 OM (seqSV-CABG 45 patients; Group B). Transit-time flowmetry (TTF), and graft flow reserve were evaluated. Recurrent angina, acute myocardial infarction, readmission for coronary reintervention were defined "treatment failure" during follow-up. RESULTS: SeqSV-CABG showed better intraoperative maximum (119.1+/-57.5 ml/min vs. sSV-CABG 62.4+/-29.6; p=0.001), mean (56.3+/-31.5 ml/min vs. 30.8+/-12.8; p=0.0001), minimum flow (22.8+/-9.2 ml/min vs. 11.8+/-8.9; p=0.001) and P.I. (0.71+/-0.4 vs.1.46+/-0.9; p=0.006). Graft flow reserve also proved to be higher (95.4+/-29.7 ml/min mean flow vs. sSV-CABG 42.3+/-15.2 ml/min mean flow; p=0.0001; flow reserve 1.72+/-0.99 vs 1.32+/-1.09; p=0.001) as well as freedom from treatment failure (97.5+/-0.5% vs 88.7+/-0.4%; p=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SeqSV-CABG showed higher TTF flows, with no incremental risk for perioperative morbidity. Higher flows and graft flow reserve may allow lower treatment failure at mid-term follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Onorati et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: