How to harvest the left internal mammary artery—a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Abstract OBJECTIVES It is uncertain whether Thunderbeat has a place in harvesting the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) and whether skeletonization is superior to pedicle-harvested LIMA. Some investigations have shown improved flowrates in the skeletonized graft. The aim of this study was to compare 3 groups of harvesting techniques: Pedicled, surgical skeletonized and skeletonized with Thunderbeat in terms of flow rates in the LIMA and postoperative in-hospital outcomes. METHODS Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with the LIMA to the anterior descending artery were randomized to pedicled (n = 56), surgical skeletonized (n = 55) and skeletonized with Thunderbeat (n = 54). Main outcomes were blood flow and pulsatility index in the graft. RESULTS No statistical difference between groups regarding flow in LIMA or pulsatility index. Similarly, no difference in postoperative bleeding or days of hospitalization. The duration of harvesting was faster for the pedicled technique compared with surgical skeletonized and skeletonized with Thunderbeat [mean total min: pedicled 20.2 min standard deviation (SD) ± 5.4; surgical skeletonized 28.6 min SD ± 8.7; skeletonized with Thunderbeat 28.3 min SD ± 9.11, P < 0.001]. No grafts discarded due to faulty harvesting and there was no graft failure within hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS We found no difference between the harvesting methods except for a significantly faster harvesting time with the pedicled technique. However, non-touch skeletonized LIMA harvesting with Thunderbeat seems to be an effective alternative to traditional surgical skeletonized LIMA. The future will reveal whether patency is harvesting dependent. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05562908.