Transatlantic editorial: the use of multiple arterial grafts for coronary revascularization in Europe and North America

The use of multiple arterial grafts (MAGs) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is encouraged by all existing guidelines and recommendations from professional societies (Table 1) [1–3]. However, it should be noted that the evidence basis in support of the use of MAGs is not definitive.

On one hand, a large body of observational evidence suggests that patients who receive MAGs for CABG have better postoperative outcomes and superior life expectancy [4, 5]. In addition, several randomized trials have reported that the midterm patency rate of arterial conduits, the radial artery (RA) in particular, is higher than that of the saphenous vein (Table 2) [6–17].

On the other hand, observational studies comparing different surgical interventions are open to treatment allocation bias [18] so that hidden confounders, rather than true biological effect, may explain the observed differences (i.e. the patients with the likeliest long-term longevity receive MAGs). In addition, although a pooled analysis of 6 randomized trials showed a lower risk of adverse cardiac events at 5 years of follow-up with the use of the RA instead of the saphenous vein for CABG [19], the intention-to-treat analysis of the large Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART) found no difference in survival between patients receiving a single internal thoracic artery (SITA) and bilateral ITAs (BITAs) at 10 years of follow-up [6].

ART reported a high (14%) crossover rate from the BITA group to the SITA graft group and a frequent use (>20%) of the RA in the control group. Both of these factors may have diluted the treatment effect of BITA grafting [20] and worked in favour of the null hypothesis. Indeed, a post hoc non-randomized comparison of patients who received MAG vs a single arterial graft in the ART showed MAG was associated with a significant clinical benefit [6].

Currently, a second large trial, Randomized comparison of the Outcome of single vs Multiple Arterial grafts (ROMA), comparing the use of MAGs (using a second ITA or RA) vs 1 ITA and vein is underway [21]. The results of ROMA are expected in 2025; however, we here aim to report the attitude of the surgical community towards the use of MAGs in North America and in Europe.

PREVALENCE OF THE USE OF MULTIPLE ARTERIAL GRAFT

Data on the use of MAG are relatively limited for both North America and Europe (Table 3) [22–30]. In a review of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery database including 1,493,470 patients undergoing CABG between 2004 and 2015, Schwann et al. [22] reported a rate of MAG of 11.3%, with a significant decrease from 16% in 2004 to 9% in 2015. In another report from the STS database focused on low-risk patients most likely to benefit from MAG (age <70 years, no or mild chronic lung disease, body mass index <30 kg/m² and absence of diabetes), LaPar et al. [31] reported a BITA use rate of 6%.

Goldstone et al. [23] analysed a state-maintained clinical registry including all 126 non-federal hospitals in California between 2006 and 2011 and found the percentage of MAG use was 9.9%, decreasing significantly from 10.7% to 9.1% over the study period. In the mandatory clinical New York State registry, a MAG rate of 20% was reported among patients who underwent CABG between the years 2005 and 2014 compared with 14% in the mandatory New Jersey clinical registry between 2005 and 2012 [7, 32].

Guru et al. [26] studied CABG patients in Ontario using the Cardiac Care Network database and reported an overall MAG rate of 12.1% between 1991 and 2003, having increased from 3.0% to 26.5%. Rocha et al. [28], using the same registry, reported MAG in 22.4% of patients between 2008 and 2016. In another Canadian study, Pu et al. [27] studied patients in the province of British Columbia from 2000 to 2014 and reported a MAG rate of 27.8%, decreasing from 29% to 25% over the study period.

In Europe, Holm et al. [30] reported a BITA grafting rate of 34.2% in patients undergoing CABG in Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK from 2015 to 2017 using the European Multicentre Registry on Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. Janiec et al. [29] reported a MAG rate of 3.9% using the Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies registry. The Austrian Society for Cardiac and Thoracic-Vascular Surgery reported an overall MAG rate of 16.7% in the period from 2009 to 2018, increasing from 13.4% in 2009 to 25.0% in 2018. Recent data from Germany’s Institute for Quality Assurance and Transparency in Healthcare for the years 2015 and 2016 show a BITA rate of 24.4% and 25.5%, respectively, and a use of the RA at approximately 9%.

POTENTIAL REASONS FOR THE SLOW ADOPTION OF MAG BY THE SURGICAL COMMUNITY

One route to understanding the reason for low rates of multiarterial revascularization in the USA and Europe is to analyse the practice of individual surgeons. The national rates of multiarterial revascularization conceal wide extremes of practice variation between individual providers [24, 25]. For example, in a recent analysis of 26,124 patients who underwent CABG in the USA between 2005 and 2012, the prevalence of MAG was 14%: however, many surgeons performed MAG in fewer than 10% of patients, while a small minority of enthusiasts performed MAG in most patients (Fig. 1) [23]. Even wider practice variation was described within the ART, in which unplanned conversion rates from bilateral to SITA grafts ranged from 1.9% for 1 outlier to 100% in almost one-third of surgeons, suggesting ample variability in the level of confidence with the BITA procedure (Fig. 2) [6, 33].

Figure 1:

Rate of multiarterial revascularization by individual surgeon, stratified by annual coronary bypass case volume in a US mandatory clinical registry. (From Chikwe et al. [25].)

Open in new tabDownload slide

Figure 2:

Rate of unplanned conversion from bilateral to single internal mammary artery by individual surgeon, stratified by number of patients randomized in the Arterial Revascularization Trial. ( © (2019) Massachusetts Medical Society. Reprinted with permission from Taggart et al. [6].)

Open in new tabDownload slide

These extremes of practice may be explained in terms of evidence, expertise and incentives. The absence of compelling evidence was cited by almost one-third of UK surgeons when asked in 2018 what issues limited use of BITA grafts in clinical practice [34]. As discussed, although a large body of observational data suggests that a second arterial conduit is associated with improved survival, graft patency and freedom from reintervention, the findings of randomized studies have been equivocal [4–6, 17, 18, 20–28, 31].

For those surgeons convinced by the available evidence-base, an important factor limiting use of MAG may be technical expertise. The extent of and reason for this gap in practice are not apparent from simply analysing surgeon case-volume and revascularization strategy. In 2 US registry studies, for example, no correlation was found between surgeon case-volume and MAG use: high volume surgeons were just as likely to prefer a single arterial graft strategy as their low-volume counterparts [24, 25].

Prospectively collected data on intraoperative decision-making influencing MAG vs single arterial graft would be very beneficial. In this context, the data on unplanned conversion from BITA to a SITA graft in the ART are particularly important because it prospectively details the technical and clinical challenges that precluded BITA grafting by a group of surgeons specifically selected for their expertise in and enthusiasm for that approach [33]. The most common reason, reported in 31% of cases, was that the conduit was ‘unsuitable’; specifically ‘damaged’ in more than half such cases, with ‘poor flow’ in one-third and ‘too short’ in the rest [33]. It is notable that similar problems were reported in fewer than 1% of patients allocated to a SITA graft. Successful deployment of the right ITA requires greater technical facility, especially with composite and sequential grafts. Notably, this does not apply to the use of the RA. In fact, in the quoted analysis of the STS database, Schwann et al. [22] reported a clear volume-to-outcome relationship for BITA but not RA grafting.

Finally, incentive is the third factor potentially driving the wider use of MAG and, specifically, the acceptance of the potential disadvantages of this strategy such as higher risk of sternal or forearm complications, bleeding, longer operative times and the additional training and planning associated in particular with BITA use [34, 35]. Increased sternal wound infection is a significant disincentive in the US health care setting, especially among diabetic patients, because providers may not receive reimbursement for the additional care associated with wound complications. It is important to note that even among diabetic patients, however, observational data suggest a mortality benefit for BITA over SITA grafting [32].

Also, 30-day outcomes, including complications and patient satisfaction, are commonly publicly reported and may form part of managed care contracting criteria. There may be real concern that referrals could be targeted elsewhere on the basis of 30-day outcomes rather than putative late survival benefit.

STRATEGIES TO INCREASE MULTIPLE ARTERIAL GRAFT

On this basis, there are, in our opinion, 4 strategies that could potentially increase the appropriate use of MAG:

• Foster a cultural shift from the view of CABG as an entry-level operation for learners towards a specialist operation for experts. Update curricula and operative requirements for professional certification to include current best practice in MAG with associated advanced training courses.

• Revise consensus guidelines to emphasize the role of targeted referral to expert providers offering a high likelihood of MAG and simultaneous low mortality in appropriate patients.

• Expand publicly reported CABG benchmarks, such as the STS quality bundle, to include MAG (or documentation of its contraindication) for young patients and compliance with evidence-based prophylactic sternal infection care bundles.

• Add appropriateness of intervention to public reporting for surgical revascularization.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, a substantial body of evidence suggests that MAG may be associated with improved survival, graft patency and freedom from reintervention. However, lack of clear level I evidence (in particular for BITA grafting), variable surgical expertise, and disincentives linked to short-term outcomes impact public reporting and reimbursement and have led to extreme variation in the use of MAG even in the most appropriate patients. Disseminating consensus guidelines updated to reflect current best practice, especially in younger patients, and expanding quality benchmarks to include appropriateness of the revascularization strategy may help in addressing this knowledge and practice gaps.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the ÖG-HTG [Österreichische Gesellschaft für Herz und thorakale Gefässchirurgie (Austrian Society for Cardiac and Thoracic-Vascular Surgery)] for their support.

Conflict of interest: none declared.

REFERENCES