Key result
BITA grafting cuts mortality ~24% vs SITA in patients 70 and older.
Why the study?
The optimal choice of graft material in patients ≥70 years of age undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting remains unknown.
Does bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting improve survival compared to single internal thoracic artery grafting in patients ≥70 years of age undergoing CABG?
Meta-Analysis (n=11,185)
Does bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting improve survival compared to single internal thoracic artery grafting in patients ≥70 years of age undergoing CABG?
In patients ≥70 years of age undergoing CABG, bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting is associated with improved long-term survival compared to single internal thoracic artery grafting, despite a higher risk of sternal wound complications.
Supports BITA grafting in select patients ≥70 years undergoing CABG; extends evidence to this age group but requires RCT confirmation.
The optimal choice of graft material in patients ≥70 years of age undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting remains unknown. A systematic review of literature was conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for original publications that compared bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting with single internal thoracic artery grafting in patients ≥70 years of age. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators and meta-analyzed with the use of random effects. A total of 10 studies, including 11,185 patients, met the inclusion criteria. No differences in early mortality and morbidity, with the exemption of sternal wound complications which were more frequently observed in the BITA group (odds ratio 1.72, 95% 1.00 to 2.96 confidence interval [CI], p = 0.05; propensity score-matched population odds ratio 1.58, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.29, p = 0.02), were observed. Overall survival was superior in the overall patient population (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86, p <0.001), after applying a blanking period of 3 months to the overall patient population (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.92, p = 0.005) as well as in the matched population (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.89, p = 0.002); in all cases, a benefit was readily seen within a few years after surgery. The difference in freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events failed to reach statistical significance (overall patient population HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.13, p = 0.10; matched population HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.16, p = 0.11). In conclusion, BITA grafting can be safely performed in patients ≥70 years of age as late clinical benefits are expected to manifest themselves readily within a few years after surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mulder et al. (2022) conducted a meta-analysis in coronary artery bypass grafting (n=11,185). Bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting vs. Single internal thoracic artery grafting was evaluated on Overall survival (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.86, p=<0.001). Bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting improved overall survival compared to single internal thoracic artery grafting in patients ≥70 years of age (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.66-0.86; p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: