RESUMO
Multiple arterial grafting (MAG) utilizes more than one arterial graft with any additional grafts being saphenous vein grafts (SVG). It remains an infrequently used coronary surgical revascularization technique, especially in elderly patients. Our study aims to evaluate the age-related association with the relative outcomes of multiple versus single arterial grafting (SAG). The Australian and New Zealand national registry was used to identify adult patients undergoing primary isolated CABG with at least two grafts. Exclusion criteria included reoperations, concomitant or previous cardiac surgery, and the absence of arterial grafting. Propensity score matching was used to match patient groups. The primary outcome was all-cause late mortality and the secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day hospital readmission. We selected 69,624 eligible patients with a mean (standard deviation) age of 65.0 (10.2) years old. Matching between MAG and SAG generated 16,882 pairs of patients < 70 years old and 10,921 pairs of patients ≥ 70 years old. At a median [interquartile range] follow-up duration of 5.9 [3.2-9.6] years, MAG was associated with significantly reduced mortality compared to SAG (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.78; p < 0.001) in the younger subgroup as well as the elderly subgroup (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88; p < 0.001). In conclusion, MAG offers a survival benefit over SAG, in both younger and elderly patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Surgical repair of the mitral valve has long been the established therapy for degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR). Newer transcatheter methods over the last decade, such as the MitraClip, serve to restore mitral function with reduced procedural burden and enhanced recovery. This study aims to compare the shortterm and midterm outcomes of MitraClip insertion with surgical repair for MR. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted for studies comparing outcomes between surgical repair and MitraClip. The initial search returned 1850 titles, from which 12 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria (one randomized controlled trial and 11 retrospective studies). RESULTS: The final analysis comprised 4219 patients (MitraClip 1210; surgery 3009). Operative mortality was not different between the groups (odds ratio [OR] = 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.63-4.23]; p = .317). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MitraClip group (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.882, 95% CI: [0.77-0.99]; p < .001) with considerable heterogeneity (I2 > 90%; p < .001). The rate of reoperation on the mitral valve was lower in the surgical group (OR = 0.392; 95% CI: [0.188-0.817]; p = .012) as was the rate of MR recurrence grade moderate or above (OR = 0.29; 95% CI: [0.19-0.46]; p < .001) during midterm follow up. Long term survival (4-5 years) was also similar between both groups (hazard ratio = 0.70; 95% CI: [0.35-1.41]; p = .323). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the superior midterm durability of surgical valve repair for MR compared with the MitraClip.
