Abstract
Importance: The optimal conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain controversial in multivessel coronary artery disease. Objective: To compare the long-term clinical outcomes of total arterial revascularization (TAR) vs non-TAR (CABG with at least 1 arterial and 1 saphenous vein graft) in a multicenter population-based study. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter population-based cohort study using propensity score matching took place from October 2008 to March 2017 in Ontario, Canada, with a mean and maximum follow-up of 4.6 and 9.0 years, respectively. Individuals with primary isolated CABG were identified, with at least 1 arterial graft. Exclusion criteria were individuals from out of province and younger than 18 years. Patients undergoing a cardiac reoperation or those in cardiogenic shock were also excluded because these conditions would potentially bias the surgeon toward not performing TAR. Analysis began April 2019. Exposures: Total arterial revascularization. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to first event of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeated revascularization (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome. Results: Of 49404 individuals with primary isolated CABG, 2433 (4.9%) received TAR, with the total number of bypasses being 2, 3, and 4 or more vessels in 1521 (62.5%), 865 (35.6%), and 47 individuals (1.9%), respectively. The mean (SD) age was 61.2 (10.4) years and 1983 (81.5%) were men. After propensity score matching, 2132 patient pairs were formed, with equal total number of bypasses (mean [SD], 2.4 [0.5]) but with more arterial grafts in the TAR group (mean [SD], 2.4 [0.5] vs 1.2 [0.4]; P
Cite
CITATION STYLE
Rocha, R. V., Tam, D. Y., Karkhanis, R., Wang, X., Austin, P. C., Ko, D. T., … Fremes, S. E. (2020). Long-term Outcomes Associated with Total Arterial Revascularization vs Non-Total Arterial Revascularization. JAMA Cardiology, 5(5), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2019.6104
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.