Why the study?
Does the use of the internal mammary artery rather than the saphenous vein increase longevity in patients undergoing coronary bypass operations?
Does the use of the internal mammary artery rather than the saphenous vein increase longevity in patients undergoing coronary bypass operations?
This editorial highlights the historical context and future potential of using the internal mammary artery for coronary bypass grafts, supporting its superiority over saphenous vein grafts for longevity.
An excellent report by Loop et al.1 in this issue of the Journal indicates that longevity is increased when the internal mammary artery rather than the saphenous vein is used in bypass grafts. Evaluating the importance of these data provides an excellent opportunity to review both the background and the future of the mammary artery in coronary bypass operations.Use of the internal mammary artery for coronary artery disease has had a long and checkered history. The Vineberg operation — implantation of the left internal mammary artery into a tunnel of left ventricular muscle (developed around 1950) — first demonstrated . . .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frank C. Spencer (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: