4.6 Article

Radial artery versus saphenous vein versus right internal thoracic artery for coronary artery bypass grafting

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezac345

关键词

Coronary artery bypass grafting; Multiple arterial grafting; Radial artery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Based on the pooled analysis of 4 large coronary bypass surgery trials, the use of radial artery was associated with better clinical outcomes compared to saphenous vein graft and right internal thoracic artery.
OBJECTIVES: We used individual patient data from 4 of the largest contemporary coronary bypass surgery trials to evaluate differences in long-term outcomes when radial artery (RA), right internal thoracic artery (RITA) or saphenous vein graft (SVG) are used to complement the left internal thoracic artery-to-left anterior descending graft. METHODS: Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke). Propensity score matching and Cox regression were used to reduce the effect of treatment selection bias and confounders. RESULTS: A total of 10 256 patients (1510 RITA; 1385 RA; 7361 SVG) were included. The matched population consisted of 1776 propensity score-matched triplets. The mean follow-up was 7.9 +/- 0.1, 7.8 +/- 0.1 and 7.8 +/- 0.1 years in the RITA, RA and SVG cohorts respectively. All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the RA versus the SVG [hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-0.76, P = 0.003] and the RITA group (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.71, P= 0.001). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rate was also lower in the RA group versus the SVG (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67-0.90, P = 0.04) and the RITA group (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86, P = 0.02). Results were consistent in the Cox-adjusted analysis and solid to hidden confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled analysis of 4 large coronary bypass surgery trials, the use of the RA was associated with better clinical outcomes when compared to SVG and RITA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据