Bilateral versus single internal mammary artery in diabetic patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data on bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) versus single internal mammary artery (SIMA) on diabetics were analyzed; This is the only meta-analysis, the last 7 years. Medline through PubMed/EMBASE/CINHAL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 179 articles were studied; 19 studies deemed suitable and were included in the analysis. The mortality was 2.41% for BIMA versus 1.71% for SIMA (odds ratio [OR] =  0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.22). Postoperative reopening for bleeding was higher at 3.75% for BIMA versus 2.91% for SIMA (OR =  1.49; 95% CI: 1.15-1.93). The incidence of MI was 0.87% for BIMA versus 0.83% for SIMA (OR =  0.73; 95% CI: 0.37-1.44). Deep sternal wound infection was 3.02% for BIMA and 1.95% for SIMA (OR =  1.57; 95% CI: 1.26-1.95). When skeletonized, the incidence of DSWI was 2.5% for BIMA versus 2.41% for SIMA. There was a significant difference at 5-year survival favoring the BIMA, 85.15% BIMA versus 80.77% SIMA (OR =  1.79; 95% CI: 1.60-2.01). The 10-year overall survival was 74.04% BIMA versus 61.57% SIMA (OR =  1.79; 95% CI: 1.61-1.98). The 15-year survival was 47.08% for BIMA versus 37.06% for SIMA (OR =  1.69; 95% CI: 1.52-1.88). Postoperative bleeding was higher in BIMA group. Bilateral internal mammary artery in diabetic patients should be carried out in a skeletonize fashion, to reduce DSWI. There is a survival benefit of using BIMA in diabetics within 5 years of surgery; it remains significant up to 15 years.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.