Key result
This paper presents the study protocol for the extended follow-up of the RADIAL database to evaluate long-term outcomes of radial artery versus saphenous vein grafts in coronary artery bypass surgery.
Why the study?
Prior pooled randomized data showed better 5-year event-free survival with radial artery grafts, but per-protocol angiographies within 5 years may have driven repeat revascularization, leaving true long-term clinical benefits debated.
Does radial artery grafting improve long-term event-free survival compared to saphenous vein grafting in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery?
Does radial artery grafting improve long-term event-free survival compared to saphenous vein grafting in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery?
This protocol outlines the rationale for extending the follow-up of the RADIAL meta-analysis beyond 5 years to determine the true long-term clinical benefit of radial artery versus saphenous vein grafts in CABG.
Extended RADIAL follow-up protocol may clarify long-term graft outcomes in CABG; leaves open survival benefit of radial artery use.
It is generally accepted that radial artery (RA) grafts have better mid-term patency rate compared to saphenous vein grafts. However, the clinical correlates of the improved patency rate are still debated. Observational studies have suggested increased survival and event-free survival for patients who receive an RA rather than a saphenous vein, but they are open to bias and confounders. The only evidence based on randomized data is a pooled meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trial comparing the RA and the saphenous vein published by the RADial artery International Alliance (RADIAL). In the RADIAL database, improved freedom from follow-up cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization) was found at 5-year follow-up in the RA arm. The most important limitation of the RADIAL analysis is that most of the included trials had an angiographic follow-up in the first 5 years and it is unclear whether the rate of repeat revascularization (the main driver of the composite outcome) was clinically indicated due to per-protocol angiographies. Here, we present the protocol for the long-term analysis of the RADIAL database. By extending the follow-up beyond the 5th postoperative year (all trials except 1 did not have angiographic follow-up beyond 5 years), we aim to provide data on the role of RA in coronary artery bypass surgery with respect to long-term outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gaudino et al. (2019) studied Coronary artery bypass surgery. Radial artery graft vs. Saphenous vein graft was evaluated. This paper presents the study protocol for the extended follow-up of the RADIAL database to evaluate long-term outcomes of radial artery versus saphenous vein grafts in coronary artery bypass surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: