Why the study?
Guidelines recommend total arterial revascularization whenever possible, but the use of saphenous vein grafts with internal thoracic arteries remains widespread instead of arterial grafts.
Does using a radial artery compared to a saphenous vein as a third conduit improve freedom from cardiac adverse events in patients undergoing CABG for multivessel coronary artery disease?
Does using a radial artery compared to a saphenous vein as a third conduit improve freedom from cardiac adverse events in patients undergoing CABG for multivessel coronary artery disease?
Using a radial artery instead of a saphenous vein as a third conduit in CABG is associated with improved freedom from cardiac adverse events, supporting total arterial revascularization strategies.
Supports radial over saphenous vein as third conduit in CABG; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Coronary artery bypass grafting is the gold standard strategy for obtaining complete coronary revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The recent AHA and EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization recommend total arterial revascularization, especially in younger patients, whenever possible. However, the use of saphenous vein grafts in association with single or bilateral internal thoracic artery (SITA, BITA) instead of arterial grafts (radial arteries, right gastroepiploic artery and inferior epigastric artery) is widespread. We analyzed literature from the last ten years (January 2010 to December 2020) looking for evidence in favour of the use of a radial artery compared to a saphenous vein in association with BITA. We identified nine studies (4 Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and 6 large cohort observational studies with propensity score-matching) that compared arterial with saphenous grafts as third conduit. The main finding of the review is the higher rate of freedom from any cardiac adverse event in the population which reached Total Arterial myocardial Revascularization (TAR). A probable reason for the limited application of TAR as a strategy is the shortage of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maestri et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: