The Best Second Arterial Conduit for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Individual Patient Data

Abstract

Multiple arterial conduit revascularization in coronary bypass surgery is being advocated over the use of venous conduits. However, there is a critical gap regarding the optimal sequence of arterial conduit selection following the left internal thoracic artery. This study is the first individual patient data meta-analysis, which aimed to compare the right internal thoracic artery (RITA) versus the radial artery (RA) as a second-best arterial conduit. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and CENTRAL. A forward-backward citation check was performed to identify other relevant studies. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023455543). Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials and propensity-score-matched cohort studies reporting long-term outcomes (>3 years) after coronary bypass surgery using the RITA versus RA as the second arterial conduit after left internal thoracic artery. Overall, long-term survival between the RITA and RA groups showed no significant difference. Landmark analyses demonstrated the superiority of RITA as a second arterial conduit at 1 [hazard ratio (HR): 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75–0.99), P = 0.036], 2 [0.83 (95% CI, 0.72–0.96), P = 0.011], and 5 years [HR: 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68–0.95), P = 0.036] post-surgery. Freedom from major cardiovascular events was significantly higher using the RITA conduit [HR: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.59–0.89), P = 0.002]. This study supports the use of RITA, especially when used in a skeletonized in situ fashion, as a second choice following the left internal thoracic artery as it has the potential to enhance long-term survival and outcomes. Further research with standardized surgical techniques is warranted.