Key result
Y-type CABG is linked to ~59% fewer MACE and graft blockages versus sequential CABG.
Why the study?
Prognosis and complication rates differ between Y-type and sequential CABG, warranting a systematic comparison of their clinical efficacy and safety.
Does Y-type coronary artery bypass grafting improve cardiac function and reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared to sequential bypass grafting in patients undergoing CABG?
Population
112 patients undergoing Y-type CABG and 113 patients undergoing sequential CABG
Comparison
Y-type CABG of the great saphenous vein vs sequential CABG
Design
Retrospective cohort study
Follow-up
1 year
Authors
Loading...
Y-type CABG was associated with fewer events in this cohort; leaves open superiority over sequential grafting pending randomized trials.
Cohort (n=225)
Does Y-type coronary artery bypass grafting improve cardiac function and reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared to sequential bypass grafting in patients undergoing CABG?
Absolute Event Rate: 14.3% vs 34.5%
p-value: p=0.023
Y-type CABG using the great saphenous vein improves mid-term left ventricular function and reduces adverse cardiovascular events compared to sequential CABG.
Dai et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease requiring CABG (n=225). Y-type coronary artery bypass grafting of the great saphenous vein vs. Sequential coronary artery bypass grafting was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events, vascular bridge, and anastomotic blockage (p=0.023). Y-type coronary artery bypass grafting significantly reduced major adverse cardiovascular events, vascular bridge, and anastomotic blockage compared to sequential CABG (14.3% vs 34.5%; P=0.023).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: