We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery grafting in oral-treated diabetic subsets: comparative seven-year outcome analysis.
Annals of Thoracic Surgery 2004 June
BACKGROUND: Recent interest has focused on the use of arterial conduits in diabetic subsets. To date, the long-term benefits of bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting in this subgroup remain in question.
METHODS: Two hundred eighty-five consecutive oral-treated diabetics operated on nonemergent basis (1996 to 1998) were compared according to the surgical technique, left-sided skeletonized BITA (n = 228) or single internal thoracic artery- saphenous veins (SITA) (n = 57). Patients with chronic lung disease, usually preselected to SITA grafting, were not included.
RESULTS: The respective grafts to patient ratio was 3.1 +/- 1 and 3.2 +/- 0.8 for the SITA and BITA groups (p = NS). Complementary conduits used in the BITA group were gastroepiploic arteries (25%) and saphenous veins (13%). Early outcome was comparable, including the incidence of deep sternal infections (1.8% in both groups). During follow-up (range, 4 to 7.5 years; median, 5), there were less repeat revascularizations (4.4% vs 12.3%, p = 0.025) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (11.2% vs 36.8%, p < 0.0001) in the BITA group. At 7 years, survival (Kaplan-Meier) (75% vs 59%, p = 0.006, log-rank), freedom from cardiac mortality (92% vs 68%, p < 0.0001), and freedom from MACE (70% vs 59%, p = 0.004) were superior in the BITA group. Multivariate analysis identified the use of BITA as a protective factor against the occurrence of late cardiac mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.2) and MACE (OR 0.3); conversely, SITA-saphenous vein arrangements increased the risk by fivefold (OR 5, confidence interval limits [CL] 1.6 to 16.6, p = 0.005) and threefold (OR 3.3, CL 1.5 to 9, p = 0.005), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Left-sided BITA grafting confers improved long-term survival and event-free survival in oral-treated diabetics. We, therefore, recommended this approach in this diabetic subset.
METHODS: Two hundred eighty-five consecutive oral-treated diabetics operated on nonemergent basis (1996 to 1998) were compared according to the surgical technique, left-sided skeletonized BITA (n = 228) or single internal thoracic artery- saphenous veins (SITA) (n = 57). Patients with chronic lung disease, usually preselected to SITA grafting, were not included.
RESULTS: The respective grafts to patient ratio was 3.1 +/- 1 and 3.2 +/- 0.8 for the SITA and BITA groups (p = NS). Complementary conduits used in the BITA group were gastroepiploic arteries (25%) and saphenous veins (13%). Early outcome was comparable, including the incidence of deep sternal infections (1.8% in both groups). During follow-up (range, 4 to 7.5 years; median, 5), there were less repeat revascularizations (4.4% vs 12.3%, p = 0.025) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (11.2% vs 36.8%, p < 0.0001) in the BITA group. At 7 years, survival (Kaplan-Meier) (75% vs 59%, p = 0.006, log-rank), freedom from cardiac mortality (92% vs 68%, p < 0.0001), and freedom from MACE (70% vs 59%, p = 0.004) were superior in the BITA group. Multivariate analysis identified the use of BITA as a protective factor against the occurrence of late cardiac mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.2) and MACE (OR 0.3); conversely, SITA-saphenous vein arrangements increased the risk by fivefold (OR 5, confidence interval limits [CL] 1.6 to 16.6, p = 0.005) and threefold (OR 3.3, CL 1.5 to 9, p = 0.005), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Left-sided BITA grafting confers improved long-term survival and event-free survival in oral-treated diabetics. We, therefore, recommended this approach in this diabetic subset.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app