As compared with the use of saphenous-vein grafts, the use of radial-artery grafts for CABG resulted in a lower rate of adverse cardiac events and a higher rate of patency at 5 years of follow-up. (Funded by Weill Cornell Medicine and others.).
At mean 5-year angiography in largely asymptomatic patients, the selection of arterial or venous conduit for the second graft has not significantly affected patency. This finding offers surgeons, for now, enhanced flexibility in planning revascularization.
This large multicenter study suggests that a strategy of total arterial revascularization is associated with improved long-term survival compared with the use of only a single arterial and saphenous vein grafts. Total arterial revascularization should be encouraged in patients with a reasonable life expectancy.
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.
Background:
An internal thoracic artery graft to the left anterior descending artery is standard in coronary bypass surgery, but controversy exists on the best second conduit. The RAPCO trials (Radial Artery Patency and Clinical Outcomes) were designed to compare the long-term patency of the radial artery (RA) with that of the right internal thoracic artery (RITA) and the saphenous vein (SV).
Methods:
In RAPCO-RITA (the RITA versus RA arm of the RAPCO trial), 394 patients <70 years of age (or <60 years of age if they had diabetes mellitus) were randomized to receive RA or free RITA graft on the second most important coronary target. In RAPCO-SV (the SV versus RA arm of the RAPCO trial), 225 patients ≥70 years of age (or ≥60 years of age if they had diabetes mellitus) were randomized to receive RA or SV graft. The primary outcome was 10-year graft failure. Long-term mortality was a nonpowered coprimary end point. The main analysis was by intention to treat.
Results:
In the RA versus RITA comparison, the estimated 10-year patency was 89% for RA versus 80% for free RITA (hazard ratio for graft failure, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.23–0.88]). Ten-year patient survival estimate was 90.9% in the RA arm versus 83.7% in the RITA arm (hazard ratio for mortality, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30–0.95]). In the RA versus SV comparison, the estimated 10-year patency was 85% for the RA versus 71% for the SV (hazard ratio for graft failure, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.15–1.00]), and 10-year patient survival estimate was 72.6% for the RA group versus 65.2% for the SV group (hazard ratio for mortality, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.47–1.22]).
Conclusions:
The 10-year patency rate of the RA is significantly higher than that of the free RITA and better than that of the SV.
Registration:
URL:
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov
; Unique identifier: NCT00475488.
The greater risk of progression of left-sided moderate lesions, and high graft patency rates when bypassed, suggests that the balance of clinical judgment lies in favor of grafting moderate left-sided lesions. In the right coronary system, however, a lesion is likely to remain moderate if left ungrafted and, with a low risk of progression, it may be reasonable to leave these vessels undisturbed.
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.