Bilateral internal thoracic artery versus radial artery multi-arterial bypass grafting: a report from the STS database†.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Multi-arterial bypass grafting with bilateral internal thoracic (BITA-MABG) or radial (RA-MABG) arteries improves long-term survival, but its increased complexity raises perioperative safety concerns. We compared perioperative outcomes of RA-MABG and BITA-MABG using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (STS-ACSD). METHODS: We analysed the 2004-2015 BITA-MABG and RA-MABG experience in STS-ACSD. Primary end points were operative mortality (OM) and deep sternal wound infections (DSWI). Risk-adjusted odds ratios [AOR (95% confidence interval)] were derived via multivariable logistic regression. Sensitivity analyses were done in patient sub-cohorts and based on institutional BITA-utilization rates (<5%, 5-10%, 10-20%, 20-40% and >40%). RESULTS: Eighty-five thousand nine hundred five RA-MABG (82.5% men; 61 years) and 61 336 BITA-MABG (85.1% men; 59 years) patients were analysed; 41.6% of BITA-MABG and 27.3% of RA-MABG cases came from institutions with low MABG utilization rates (<10%). Unadjusted OM was equivalent for both techniques (BITA-MABG versus RA-MABG 1.3% vs 1.2%, P = 0.79), while DSWI was lower for RA-MABG (1.0% vs 0.6%, P < 0.001). RA-MABG was associated with lower adjusted OM [AOR = 0.80 (0.69-0.96)] and DSWI [AOR = 0.39 (0.32-0.46)]. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness of these findings. Equivalent outcomes were observed at high BITA-use institutions where BITA cases comprised >20% of all cases for OM and ≥40% for DSWI. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of the STS-ACSD showed that RA-MABG is a generally safer form of multi-arterial coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. However, this advantage is mitigated at institutions with substantial BITA experience.