Comparative analysis of the efficiency of the use of various types of conduits during coronary artery bypass grafting

The OBJECTIVE was to compare efficiency of the use of various types of conduits during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

METHODS AND MATERIALS. The retrospective study included 282 patients, who underwent CABG, performed with different types of conduits. The average age of the patients was 63.2±8.5 years; the majority of 231 patients (81.9%) were male. Patients were separated in 3groups depending on the use of conduits: the first one included patients after bimammary coronary artery bypass grafting (n=77); the second one involved coronary artery bypass grafting using radial artery(n=87); the third one included patients with venous conduits (n=77). The main endpoint of the study was the development of conduit dysfunctions in the long-term period according to diagnostic coronary artery bypass grafting.

RESULTS. The average follow-up time in the long-term period was 44.9±39 months. During this period, 198 patients underwent diagnostic coronary artery bypass grafting. According to the results of the analysis, the greatest effectiveness was observed in groups using arterial conduits – the left internal thoracic artery and radial artery. For example, the incidence of dysfunction of the left internal thoracic artery in the anterior artery basin was 8.2%; the incidence of dysfunction of radial artery in the right artery basin was 12.5 %, and in the obtuse marginal branch basin – 11.5 %; while the incidence of venous conduits’ dysfunction varied, reaching its maximum of 42.8 %.

CONCLUSIONS. Thus, the greatest efficiency was observed when using the left and the right internal thoracic arteries, thereafter by the radial artery. The results of using venous conduits were lower.

1. Sigaev I. Yu., Keren M. A. Indications, criteria, choice of the method of myocardial revascularization: European and Russian clinical guidelines data. Creative cardiology. 2018;12(2):67–176. (In Russ.).

2. Shevchenko Yu. L., Borshchev G. G., Ulbashev D. S., Zemlyanov A. V. Choice of conduits in coronary surgery. Bulletin of Pirogov National Medical & Surgical Center. 2019;14(1):97–104. (In Russ.).

3. Buziashvli Yu. I., Koksheneva I. V., Petrosya K. V. et al. Influence of genetic markers of the endothelin system dysfunction on the progosis after percutaneous coronary intervention. Bulletin of the A. N. Bakulev National Agricultural Academy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Cardiovascular diseases. 2019;20(9–10):799–805. (In Russ.).

4. Krivenkova E. M, Merzlyakov V. Yu, Skopin A. I., Mamedova S. K. The current state of the problem of bypass surgery of the left anterior descending artery using the left internal thoracic artery. Russian journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular surgery. 2023;65(1):16–23. (In Russ.).

5. Golukhova E. Z., Keren M. A., Zavalikhina T. V. et al. Prognosis of early outcomes after isolated coronary bypass surgery: results of a singlecenter cohort study. Annals of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2023;78(3):176–184. (In Russ.).

6. Lawton J., Tamis-Holland J., Bangalore S. et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022:18;79(2):21– 129. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006.

7. Neumann F., Sousa-Uva M., Ahlsson A. et al. ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87–165. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394.

8. Gaudino M., Audisio K., Di Franco A. et al. Radial artery versus saphenous vein versus right internal thoracic artery for coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022;62(1):ezac345. DOI:10.1093/ejcts/ezac345.

9. Taggart D., Benedetto U., Gerry S. et al. Arterial Revascularization Trial Investigators. Bilateral versus single internal- thoracic-artery grafts at 10 years. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:437–46.

10. Lamy A., Devereaux P., Prabhakaran D. et al. Сoronary Investigators. Five-year outcomes after off-pump or on- pump coronary-artery bypass grafting. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:2359–68.

11. Lopes R., Williams J., Mehta R. et al. Edifoligide and long-term outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft- ing: PRoject of Ex vivo Vein graft engineering via Transfection IV (prevent IV) 5-year results. Am Heart J. 2012;164:379–386.e1.

12. Buxton B., Hayward P., Raman J. et al. Long-term results of the RAPCO trials. Circulation. 2020;142:1330–8.

13. Goldstone A., Chiu P., Baiocchi M. et al. Second arterial versus venous conduits for multivessel coronary artery bypass surgery in California. Circulation. 2018;137(16):1698–1707. DOI: 10.1161/circulationaha.117.030959.