A meta-analysis of adjusted hazard ratios from 20 observational studies of bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery coronary artery bypass grafting

Abstract

Objective: In 2001, a landmark meta-analysis of bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) versus single internal thoracic artery (SITA) coronary artery bypass grafting for long-term survival included 7 observational studies (only 3 of which reported adjusted hazard ratios [HRs]) enrolling approximately 16,000 patients. Updating the previous meta-analysis to determine whether BITA grafting reduces long-term mortality relative to SITA grafting, we exclusively abstracte, then combined in a meta-analysis, adjusted (not unadjusted) HRs from observational studies.

Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until September 2013. Eligible studies were observational studies of BITA versus SITA grafting and reporting an adjusted HR for long-term (≥4 years) mortality as an outcome. Meta-regression analyses were performed to determine whether the effects of BITA grafting were modulated by the prespecified factors.

Results: Twenty observational studies enrolling 70,897 patients were identified and included. A pooled analysis suggested a significant reduction in long-term mortality with BITA relative to SITA grafting (HR, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 0.84). When data from 6 pedicled and 6 skeletonized internal thoracic artery studies were separately pooled, BITA grafting was associated with a statistically significant 26% and 16% reduction in mortality relative to SITA grafting, respectively (P for subgroup differences=.04). A meta-regression coefficient was significantly negative for the proportion of men (-0.00960; -0.01806 to -0.00114).

Conclusions: Based on an updated meta-analysis of exclusive adjusted HRs from 20 observational studies enrolling more than 70,000 patients, BITA grafting seems to significantly reduce long-term mortality. As the proportion of men increases, BITA grafting is more beneficial in reducing mortality.