Institution: | 1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Brescia Medical School, Brescia, Italy;2. Division of Cardiology, Ospedale Bolognini, Seriate, Italy;3. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Queen''s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada |
Abstract: | PurposeTo evaluate the impact of the revascularization technique (by means of conventional, total arterial or hybrid myocardial revascularization) in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.MethodsA propensity-score analysis of patients undergoing myocardial revascularization from 1998 to 2012 was performed based on the surgical technique utilized, either total arterial (Group1, G1,n°?=?89), conventional CABG(LIMA on LAD plus veins, Group2, G2,n°?=?89), or hybrid revascularization (LIMA on LAD plus PTCA on non-LAD vessels, Group3, G3, n°?=?89). Primary end-points were overall survival and cardiac-related death while secondary composite end-point was survival freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) defined as myocardial infarction, cardiac death, stroke and repeated target vessel revascularization.ResultsStudy population was mostly affected by double-vessels disease (G1?=?2.35 vs G2?=?2.3 vs G3?=?2.4, p?=?0.14) with a preserved LV function(G1?=?48% vs G2?=?49% vs G3?=?50%, p?=?0.12). Hospital mortality was 0% in all groups. At a mean follow-up of 6?±?2?years overall survival was significantly better in patients receiving total arterial myocardial revascularization (G1?=?90.4?±?3.5% vs G2?=?82.3?±?4.2% vs G3?=?82.1?±?5.9%, p?=?0.049) as well as freedom from MACCEs (G1?=?95.2?±?2.4% vs G2?=?86.5?±?4% vs G3?=?68?±?6.9%, p?=?0.001) while survival free from cardiac-related death was similar(G1?=?97.7?±?1.6% vs G2?=?95.1?±?2.4% vs G3?=?89.5?±?5.4%, p?=?0.08). Conversely, at 10?years follow-up only freedom from MACCEs was significantly better in patients of Group 1(G1?=?78.9?±?8.6% vs G2?=?72.4?±?5.7% vs G3?=?52?±?8.7%, p?<?0.001).ConclusionsTotal arterial revascularization provides improved outcomes at mid and long term follow-up compared with conventional or hybrid revascularization. The latter technique is particularly associated with a significantly higher incidence of late myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. |