Should bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting be used in patients after recent myocardial infarction?

Abstract

Background-Bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting (BITA) is associated with improved survival. However, surgeons do not commonly use BITA in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) because survival is good with single internal thoracic artery grafting (SITA). We aimed to compare the outcomes of BITA with those of SITA and other approaches in patients with multivessel disease after recent MI. Methods and Results-In total, 938 patients with recent MI (< 3 months) who underwent BITA between 1996 and 2011 were compared with 682 who underwent SITA. SITA patients were older and more likely to have comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic renal failure, peripheral vascular disease), to be female, and to have had a previous MI. Acute MI and 3-vessel disease were more prevalent in the BITA group. Operative mortality of BITA patients was lower (3.0% versus 5.8%, P=0.01), and sternal infections and strokes were similar. Median follow-up was 15.21 years (range: 0-21.25 years). Survival of BITA patients was better (70.3% versus 52.5%, P < 0.001). Propensity score matching was used to account for differences in preoperative characteristics between groups. Overall, 551 matched pairs had similar preoperative characteristics. BITA was a predictor of better survival in the matched groups (hazard ratio: 0.679; P=0.002; Cox model). Adjusted survival of emergency BITA and SITA patients was similar (hazard ratio: 0.883; P=0.447); however, in the nonemergency group, BITA was a predictor of better survival (hazard ratio: 0.790; P=0.009; Cox model). Conclusions-This study suggests that survival is better with BITA compared with SITA in nonemergency cases after recent MI, with proper patient selection.