Bilateral internal thoracic artery coronary grafting: risks and benefits in elderly patients

Abstract

Abstract Aims Whether bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting benefits elderly patients in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains unclear since they tend to have a limited life expectancy and severe comorbidities. We aim to evaluate the outcomes of BITA vs. single internal thoracic artery (SITA) grafting in elderly patients. Methods and results A meta-analysis was performed by database searching until May 2021. Studies comparing BITA and SITA grafting among elderly patients were included. One randomized controlled trial, nine propensity score matching, and six unmatched studies were identified, with a total of 18 146 patients (7422 received BITA grafting and 10 724 received SITA grafting). Compared with SITA grafting, BITA grafting had a higher risk of deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) [odds ratio: 1.67; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22–2.28], and this risk could not be significantly reduced by the skeletonization technique. Meanwhile, BITA grafting was associated with a higher long-term survival [hazard ratio: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.77–0.90], except for the octogenarian subgroup. Reconstructed Kaplan–Meier survival curves revealed 4-year, 8-year, and 12-year overall survival rates of 85.5%, 66.7%, and 45.3%, respectively, in the BITA group and 79.3%, 58.6%, and 34.9%, respectively, in the SITA group. No significant difference was observed in early mortality, perioperative myocardial infarction, perioperative cerebral vascular accidents, or re-exploration for bleeding. Conclusion Compared with SITA grafting, BITA grafting could provide a long-term survival benefit for elderly patients, although this benefit remained uncertain in octogenarians. Meanwhile, elderly patients who received BITA were associated with a higher risk of DSWI and such a risk could not be eliminated by the skeletonization technique.