Key result
Patent IMA graft linked to ~31% lower long-term mortality.
Why the study?
The influence of an internal mammary artery graft on long-term outcomes after percutaneous saphenous vein graft intervention was unknown.
Does the presence of a patent IMA graft or percutaneous SVG intervention improve long-term outcomes in patients with prior CABG?
Cohort (n=2,119)
Does the presence of a patent IMA graft or percutaneous SVG intervention improve long-term outcomes in patients with prior CABG?
Hazard Ratio: 0.69 (95% CI 0.58–0.82)
In patients with prior CABG, a patent IMA graft is associated with improved long-term survival, whereas percutaneous SVG intervention does not improve survival and is associated with an increased risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction.
BACKGROUND: The influence of an internal mammary artery (IMA) graft on long-term outcomes after percutaneous saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention is currently unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: To examine the impact of IMA on outcomes in patients undergoing SVG interventions, we analyzed 2119 patients from the Duke Cardiovascular Disease Database (1986-2003) with prior coronary artery bypass surgery undergoing cardiac catheterization who had at least 1 SVG graft. Patients were categorized into 4 groups: group I, SVG intervention and patent IMA; group II, no SVG intervention and patent IMA; group III, SVG intervention without patent IMA; and group IV, no SVG intervention without patent IMA. At a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 2.1 to 8.8 years), adjusted survival rates in groups I, II, III, and IV were 72.8%, 72.3%, 64.5%, and 58.9%, respectively. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling showed similar survival for groups I and II (P=0.63) and for groups III and IV (P=0.33). The presence of IMA graft was related to lower long-term mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82), whereas SVG intervention was not associated with long-term mortality (adjusted HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.10). In contrast, the adjusted event-free rates for nonfatal myocardial infarction were lower in the SVG intervention groups (groups I and III) than in the non-SVG intervention groups (groups II and IV) (HR for SVG intervention versus no SVG intervention, 3.19; 95% CI, 2.18 to 4.66), with the presence of patent IMA conferring no significant benefit on this outcome (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 0.91 to 2.08). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing SVG interventions, survival, but not nonfatal myocardial infarction, is favorably influenced by the presence of patent IMA. In contrast, SVG intervention had no measurable survival benefit but was associated with an increased risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mehta et al. (2006) conducted a cohort in Prior coronary artery bypass surgery with at least 1 saphenous vein graft (n=2,119). Patent internal mammary artery (IMA) graft vs. No patent IMA graft was evaluated on Long-term mortality (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58-0.82). The presence of a patent internal mammary artery graft was associated with lower long-term mortality (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.58-0.82), whereas saphenous vein graft intervention increased nonfatal MI risk.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: