Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Using the Radial Artery Clinical Outcomes, Patency, and Need for Reintervention

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Beth Israel Medical Center, First Ave at 16 St, New York, NY 10003. .
Circulation (Impact Factor: 14.95). 09/2012; 126(11 Suppl 1):S170-5. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.083048
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Radial artery (RA) grafts are an attractive second arterial conduit after the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. However, long-term outcomes and the need for subsequent reintervention have not been defined.
We performed a retrospective cohort study of our single institution's 16-year experience with 1851 consecutive patients (average age, 58 years; 82% men, 36% diabetic) undergoing primary, isolated CABG with the LITA, RA, and saphenous vein as needed. Average grafts per patient were 3.8, with 2.4 arterial grafts per patient. Survival was determined using the Social Security Death Index. Grafts were nonpatent if they had a >50% stenosis, a string sign, or were occluded. Five patients (0.3%) died in hospital and 0.8% had a myocardial infarction, 1.1% a stroke, and 0.6% renal failure. Kaplan-Meier-estimated 1-, 5-, 10-, and 15-year survival was 99%, 96%, 89%, and 75%, respectively. Of the cohort, 278 symptomatic patients underwent cardiac catheterization at our institution an average of 5.0±3.8 years (range, 0.1-12 years) after CABG. Overall RA (n=420 grafts) patency was 82% and SV (n=364 grafts) patency, 47% (P<0.0001). LITA (n=287 grafts including 9 sequential grafts) patency was 85% and right internal thoracic artery (n=15 grafts) patency was 80% (P=0.6). RA patency was not different from LITA patency (P=0.3). Overall freedom from catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, and CABG was 85%, 97%, and 99%, respectively.
RA grafting is a highly effective revascularization strategy providing excellent short and long-term outcomes with very low rates of reintervention. RA patency is similar to LITA patency and is much better than SV patency. RA grafting should be more widely utilized in patients undergoing CABG.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patency of the revascularization conduit is an essential predictor of long-standing survival after coronary artery bypass grafting. We have conducted this study to compare the mid-term patency rates of radial artery (RA), left internal thoracic artery (LITA) and also saphenous vein (SV) grafts in asymptomatic patients following coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) undergoing total IV anesthesia. In this study, 30 three-vessel disease patients with 104 RA, LITA, and SV grafts used concomitantly for primary isolated non-emergent CABG surgery were assessed. The primary end point was CT angiographic graft patency rate. After 53.5 (24-97) months' follow-up, graft patency was assessed using 128-slice CT coronary angiography. Logistic regression analysis was used to detect the independent predictors of graft failure. A total of 104 grafts, including 30 LITA, 44 SV, and 30 RA grafts, were studied. Cumulative graft patency rates were 93.3% in LITA, 83.3% in RA, and 70.5% in SV grafts. Statistically significant difference was found between the LITA and the SV graft patency rates (P = 0.019), whereas the difference between the RA conduit patency and the LITA or SV graft patency rates did not have any statistical significance (P = 0.424 and P = 0.273, respectively). Independent predictors of RA grafts occlusion were native coronary stenosis < 70% and female gender. In our patients, the RA grafts had an acceptable patency rate in 2 to 5 years' follow-up. Although the SV grafts had a relatively higher patency rate than RA grafts in our asymptomatic patients, the patency rates in RA and SV grafts were close to each other. The RA graft function was poor in the patients with a higher number of risk factors and in the females.
    02/2015; 5(1). DOI:10.5812/aapm.23799
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The burden of diseases associated with diabetes mel-litus is dramatic: adults with diabetes mellitus are 2 to 4 times more likely to have cardiovascular diseases than those without it, and at least 65% will die be-cause of diabetes complications. The revasculariza-tion strategy in these types of patients included per-cutaneous coronary interventions with bare metal stents or medicated stents and surgical coronary ar-tery bypass grafting (CABG), but it is well known that in the diabetic patient with two or more vessel disease, the surgical strategy allows the best mid-and long-term results. Moreover, benefits of CABG surgery are limited by life expectancy of the most common type of graft, the saphenous vein (SV). Nearly 40 years after the introduction of bypass surgery, the rate of vein graft failure remains at high levels. Several arterial conduits had been studied as alternative conduits to SV: the Right Internal Thoracic Artery (RITA), the Radial Artery (RA), the Gastroepiploic Artery (GEA) and the Inferior Epigastric Artery (IEA), 40 years ago. The aim of our article is to review the scientific literature of the past 15 years to answer this question: are we ready to treat the diabetic patient, with a com-pletely arterial revascularization, avoiding the use of the great saphenous vein grafts?
    World Journal of Cardiovascular Diseases 10/2013; 3. DOI:10.4236/wjcd.201334A004 · 0.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since its reintroduction in the early 1990s the radial artery has gained a major role in coronary surgery, currently representing a valid alternative to the right internal thoracic artery as a second arterial graft. However, its peculiar morphologic and functional features have both surgical and clinical critical implications that must be taken into account. In this review we summarize the current totality of evidence on the biologic characteristics of the radial artery, such as its histopathology, vasoreactivity, and remodeling, and discuss their potential implications for use as a coronary bypass conduit.
    The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 09/2014; 98(5). DOI:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.06.101 · 3.63 Impact Factor