Does radial use as a second arterial conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting improve long-term outcomes in diabetics?

Objectives: The evidence supporting the survival benefit of multiple arterial grafts in the general coronary bypass surgery (CABG) population is compelling. Alternatively, results of studies comparing 2 versus 1 internal thoracic artery (ITA) grafts in diabetics have reported conflicting survival data. The use of radial versus ITA as the second arterial conduit has not been studied.

Methods: We obtained complete death follow-up in 1516 consecutive diabetic [64+/-10 years (mean+/-SD). Insulin/no insulin: There were 540 (36%)/976 (64%)] primary isolated CABG patients all with >or=1 ITA grafts. The series included 626 ITA/radial (41%) and 890 ITA/vein (59%) patients. Using separate radial-use propensity models, we matched one-to-one 475 (76%) ITA/radial to 475 (53%) unique ITA/vein patients; each including 166 insulin and 309 no insulin patients.

Results: Unadjusted survival was markedly better for (1) ITA/radial (94.3%, 86.7% and 70.4% at 1, 5 and 10 years, respectively) versus ITA/vein (91.8%, 74.5% and 53.8%; p<0.0001) and (2) for no insulin (94.2%, 82.8% and 65.5%) versus insulin (90.4%, 73.1% and 49.2%; p<0.0001). In matched patients, 11-year Kaplan-Meier analysis showed essentially identical ITA/radial and ITA/vein survival for all diabetics combined (p=0.53; log rank) and for the no insulin (p=0.76) cohort. Lastly, a trend for better ITA/radial survival in insulin dependent diabetics after the second postoperative year did not reach significance (p=0.13).

Conclusions: Using radial as a second arterial conduit as opposed to vein grafting did not confer a survival benefit in diabetics. This unexpected result is perhaps related to relatively diminished radial graft patency and/or the augmented radial vasoreactivity characteristic of diabetics. These findings indicate that the radial survival advantage demonstrated in the general CABG population lies primarily in non-diabetics in whom this advantage may be underestimated.