Journal of cardiothoracic surgery 2018 01 0513(1) 2 doi 10.1186/s13019-017-0691-4
In acute situations such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with indication for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), total arterial revascularization (TAR) is often rejected in favour of saphenous vein (SV) grafting, which is assumed to allow for quicker vessel harvesting, a simpler anastomosis technique, and thus quicker revascularization and fewer bleeding complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether reluctance to apply TAR in AMI is still justified from a technical point of view in the current era and whether superiority of TAR results is also evident in emergency patients with AMI undergoing CABG.
In this retrospective analysis of 434 consecutive patients undergoing CABG for AMI with either TAR or with a combination of one internal mammary artery and SV grafts between 2008 and 2014, procedural data, short-term and mid-term outcome were compared. Propensity score matching of the groups was performed.
After propensity score matching, 250 patients were included in the analysis (TAR group: n = 98; SV group n = 152). The procedural time (TAR group: 211 min vs. SV group: 200 min, p = 0.46) did not differ between the groups. Erythrocyte transfusion rates were higher in the SV group (76% vs. 57%; p < 0.001). Rates of re-exploration for bleeding did not differ. Thirty-day mortality rates were comparable (TAR group: 3.4% vs. SV group: 4.5%, p = 0.68). Kaplan-Meier analysis until 7 years postoperatively revealed a tendency for improved survival after TAR (75% vs. 62%; log-rank p = 0.12). CONCLUSION
TAR neither impairs rapid revascularization nor reduces its safety in patients with AMI. It may result in improved long-term outcome and should be preferred in the clinical setting of AMI.