AI Article Synopsis

  • The study analyzed national practices in multiarterial coronary bypass grafting and evaluated perioperative outcomes among different grafting techniques.
  • The research included over 281,000 patients and highlighted geographic variations in BITA (bilateral internal thoracic artery) and radial artery grafting rates, with lower usage in the South compared to the Northeast.
  • Higher case volumes at medical institutions were associated with better outcomes, indicating that hospitals performing more multiarterial cases had lower mortality and morbidity rates.

Article Abstract

Background: We aimed to elucidate current national multiarterial coronary bypass grafting practice patterns and assess perioperative outcomes.

Methods: Isolated primary nonemergent/nonsalvage coronary artery bypass grafting patients with at least 1 internal thoracic artery and 2 or more grafts in The Society of Thoracic Surgery Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (2018-2019) were divided into 3 cohorts: single-arterial, bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA), and radial artery multiarterial grafting. Observed-to-expected ratios based on 2017 Society of Thoracic Surgery risk models were derived for 30-day perioperative mortality, composite major morbidity and mortality, and deep sternal wound infections for each grafting group overall and as a function of institutional multiarterial case volumes per study period: low (<10), intermediate (11-30), and high (>30).

Results: A total of 281,515 patients (BITA, 15,663 [5.6%]; radial, 23,905 [8.5%]) at 1013 centers showed distinct geographic grafting patterns: BITA and radial multiarterial grafting rates were lowest in the South (4% and 6%, respectively) and highest in the Northeast (9% and 11%, respectively). The median institutional number of BITA and radial cases per study period was 4 and 7, with only 14% and 21% of institutions performing >30 BITA and radial multiarterial cases per study period, respectively. The observed-to-expected mortality for single-arterial bypass grafting was similar to multiarterial: single-arterial, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.98-1.03); BITA, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.84-1.13; P = .711); and radial, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.86-1.07; P = .818). Observed-to-expected mortality and composite major morbidity and mortality were lower at high vs low multiarterial case-volume centers: 0.91 (95% CI, 0.75-1.08) vs 1.30 (95% CI, 0.89-1.79; P = .048) and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.99-1.13) vs 1.51 (95% CI, 1.32-1.71; P < .001), respectively, for BITA, and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.87-1.30) vs 1.67 (95% CI, 1.21-2.21; P < .001) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.93-1.08) vs 1.42 (95% CI, 1.24-1.61; P < .001), respectively, for radial.

Conclusions: Multiarterial bypass grafting remains underused and limited to select centers. Worse outcomes at low-volume BITA and radial institutions document a case-volume outcomes effect. Additional studies are warranted to improve multiarterial outcomes at low-volume institutions.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.12.014DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bypass grafting
20
bita radial
20
society thoracic
12
study period
12
95%
11
multiarterial
10
grafting
9
multiarterial coronary
8
coronary artery
8
artery bypass
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!