IMPORTANCE Observational studies have suggested that the use of radial artery grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting may improve clinical outcomes compared with the use of saphenous vein grafts, but this has not been confirmed in randomized trials.OBJECTIVE To compare clinical outcomes between patients receiving radial artery vs saphenous vein grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting after long-term follow-up.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSPatient-level pooled analysis comparing radial artery vs saphenous vein graft in adult patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from 5 countries (Australia, Italy, Serbia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom), with enrollment from 1997 to 2009 and follow-up completed in 2019.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to undergo either radial artery (n = 534) or saphenous vein (n = 502) grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization and the secondary outcome was a composite of death or myocardial infarction.RESULTS A total of 1036 patients were randomized (mean age, 66.6 years in the radial artery group vs 67.1 years in the saphenous vein group; 376 [70.4%] men in the radial artery group vs 351 [69.9%] in the saphenous vein group); 942 (90.9%) of the originally randomized patients completed 10 years of follow-up (510 in the radial artery group). At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 10 (10-11) years, the use of the radial artery, compared with the saphenous vein, in coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization (220 vs 237 total events; 41 vs 47 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.61-0.88]; P < .001) and of the composite of death or myocardial infarction (188 vs 193 total events; 35 vs 38 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63-0.94]; P = .01).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this individual participant data meta-analysis with a median follow-up of 10 years, among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, the use of the radial artery compared with the saphenous vein was associated with a lower risk of a composite of cardiovascular outcomes.
Aims
Data suggest that women have worse outcomes than men after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), but results have been inconsistent across studies. Due to the large differences in baseline characteristics between sexes, suboptimal risk adjustment due to low-quality data may be the reason for the observed differences. To overcome this limitation, we undertook a systematic review and pooled analysis of high-quality individual patient data from large CABG trials to compare the adjusted outcomes of women and men.
Methods and results
The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, MACCE). The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Multivariable mixed-effect Cox regression was used. Four trials involving 13 193 patients (10 479 males; 2714 females) were included. Over 5 years of follow-up, women had a significantly higher risk of MACCE [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04–1.21; P = 0.004] but similar mortality (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94–1.14; P = 0.51) compared to men. Women had higher incidence of MI (adjusted HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11–1.52) and repeat revascularization (adjusted HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04–1.43) but not stroke (adjusted HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.90–1.52). The difference in MACCE between sexes was not significant in patients 75 years and older. The use of off-pump surgery and multiple arterial grafting did not modify the difference between sexes.
Conclusions
Women have worse outcomes than men in the first 5 years after CABG. This difference is not significant in patients aged over 75 years and is not affected by the surgical technique.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.