Meta-Analysis Comparing Multiple Arterial Grafts Versus Single Arterial Graft for Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting

Abstract

Observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown conflicting outcomes for multiple arterial graft (MAG) coronary artery bypass graft surgery compared with single arterial grafts (SAGs). The predominant evidence supporting the use of MAGs is observational. The aim of this meta-analysis of RCTs is to compare outcomes following MAG and SAG. We searched multiple databases for RCTs comparing MAG versus SAG. The clinical outcomes studied were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), revascularization, stroke, sternal wound complications, and major bleeding. We used hazard ratio (HR), relative risk (RR), and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for measuring outcomes. Ten RCTs (6392 patients) were included. The average follow-up in the studies was 4.2 years. The average age of the patients in the studies ranged from 56.3 years to 74.6. No significant difference was seen between MAG and SAG groups for all-cause mortality (11.8% vs 12.7%, HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09, p 0.36), cardiac mortality (4.1% vs 4.5%, HR 0.96 95% CI 0.74 to 1.26, p 0.77), MI (3.5% vs 5.1%, HR 0.87 95% CI 0.67 to 1.12, p 0.28), and major bleeding (3.3% vs 4.9%, RR 0.85 95% CI 0.64 to 1.13, p 0.26). Repeat revascularization in MAG showed a lower RR than SAG when one of the confounding studies was excluded (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.99, p 0.04). The incidence of stroke was lower in MAG than SAG (2.9% vs 3.9%, RR 0.74 95% CI 0.56 to 0.98, p 0.03). MAG had higher incidence of sternal wound complications than SAG (2.9% vs 1.7%, RR 1.75 95% CI 1.19 to 2.55, p 0.004). In conclusion, MAG does not have a survival advantage compared with SAG but is better in revascularization and risk of stroke. This benefit may be set off by a higher incidence of sternal wound complications in MAG.