Association of Radial Artery Graft vs Saphenous Vein Graft With Long-term Cardiovascular Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Aged
Coronary Artery Bypass
/ methods
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Incidence
Male
Myocardial Infarction
/ epidemiology
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Radial Artery
/ transplantation
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Reoperation
/ statistics & numerical data
Saphenous Vein
/ transplantation
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Journal
JAMA
ISSN: 1538-3598
Titre abrégé: JAMA
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7501160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 07 2020
14 07 2020
Historique:
entrez:
15
7
2020
pubmed:
15
7
2020
medline:
23
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Observational studies have suggested that the use of radial artery grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting may improve clinical outcomes compared with the use of saphenous vein grafts, but this has not been confirmed in randomized trials. To compare clinical outcomes between patients receiving radial artery vs saphenous vein grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting after long-term follow-up. Patient-level pooled analysis comparing radial artery vs saphenous vein graft in adult patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from 5 countries (Australia, Italy, Serbia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom), with enrollment from 1997 to 2009 and follow-up completed in 2019. Patients were randomized to undergo either radial artery (n = 534) or saphenous vein (n = 502) grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization and the secondary outcome was a composite of death or myocardial infarction. A total of 1036 patients were randomized (mean age, 66.6 years in the radial artery group vs 67.1 years in the saphenous vein group; 376 [70.4%] men in the radial artery group vs 351 [69.9%] in the saphenous vein group); 942 (90.9%) of the originally randomized patients completed 10 years of follow-up (510 in the radial artery group). At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 10 (10-11) years, the use of the radial artery, compared with the saphenous vein, in coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization (220 vs 237 total events; 41 vs 47 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.61-0.88]; P < .001) and of the composite of death or myocardial infarction (188 vs 193 total events; 35 vs 38 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63-0.94]; P = .01). In this individual participant data meta-analysis with a median follow-up of 10 years, among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, the use of the radial artery compared with the saphenous vein was associated with a lower risk of a composite of cardiovascular outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32662861
pii: 2768133
doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.8228
pmc: PMC7361649
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
179-187Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL152021
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Ann Thorac Surg. 2018 Apr;105(4):1109-1119
pubmed: 29453002
Circulation. 2008 Jun 3;117(22):2859-64
pubmed: 18506009
J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015 Oct 15;10:127
pubmed: 26466996
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009 May;137(5):1093-100
pubmed: 19379973
Korean Circ J. 2012 Feb;42(2):107-12
pubmed: 22396698
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Dec 1;56(6):1025-1030
pubmed: 31535147
JAMA. 2015 Apr 28;313(16):1657-65
pubmed: 25919529
N Am J Med Sci. 2010 Apr;2(4):170-3
pubmed: 22624135
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Nov 5;8(21):e013711
pubmed: 31663420
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003 Jun;125(6):1363-71
pubmed: 12830056
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017 Dec 1;52(6):1031-1040
pubmed: 29059371
N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378(22):2069-2077
pubmed: 29708851
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015 Jan;47(1):59-65; discussion 65
pubmed: 24686003
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 31;380(5):437-446
pubmed: 30699314
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Jan 6;7(1):
pubmed: 29306899
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 May;157(5):1819-1825.e10
pubmed: 30551962