English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives: The long-term advantages of multiple arterial grafts, particularly a third arterial conduit, for coronary artery bypass (CABG) are not clear. This study was designed to test whether multiple arterial grafts would provide better long-term outcomes when compared with approaches using fewer arterial conduits. Methods: Between 1985 and 1995, prospective data were collected for 588 patients undergoing isolated CABG at our institution. We examined long-term survival and freedom from cardiac death. The primary analysis compared patients receiving bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) vs. single ITA (SITA). In a subgroup analysis, BITA patients receiving a right gastroepiploic artery (RGEA) were compared with those receiving a saphenous vein graft (SVG) as a third conduit. Cox proportional hazard modelling was used to adjust for relevant confounders. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to create survival curves over the follow-up period. Results: The mean age was 59 ± 9 years and 49% received BITA. Mean follow-up was 16.1 ± 5.4 years. Multivariable analysis revealed that overall survival [hazard ratio (HR): 0.74, P = 0.017] and cardiac survival (HR: 0.61, P = 0.004) was significantly improved in the presence of BITA compared with SITA. The survival at 10 and 20 years was 90.2 ± 3.4 and 56.9 ± 6.4% for the BITA vs. 82 ± 4.4 and 40.9 ± 6% for the SITA, respectively. In the subgroup of BITA patients, those receiving the RGEA as a third conduit had superior overall survival (HR: 0.41, P = 0.0032) and cardiac survival (HR: 0.18, P = 0.004) compared with those receiving an SVG. The survival at 10 and 20 years was 98.9 ± 2 and 68.9 ± 18% for the BITA/RGEA vs. 87.2 ± 4.6 and 50.3 ± 7% for the BITA/SVG, respectively. Conclusions: In a single-institution experience, the use of multiple arterial grafting is independently associated with superior outcomes. Furthermore, the use of a third arterial conduit (RGEA) targeted to the right coronary artery should be considered to improve long-term survival

Survival benefit of multiple arterial grafting in a 25-year single-institutional experience: the importance of the third arterial graft