Does the completeness of revascularization affect early survival after coronary artery bypass grafting in elderly...

Usefulness and risks of incomplete versus complete revascularization are still matters of ongoing discussions. Because an increasing number of elderly patients are undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the question arises whether a less extensive surgical approach is more prudent than complete revascularization.

Of 6531 patients undergoing isolated CABG, 859 were 75 and older at the time of operation. Mean age of the 859 patients was 77+/-2.7 years (median: 76 years); 65% were men. Follow-up enquiry by questionnaire was performed at the 180th postoperative day with a completeness of 95.6%. Assessment of the impact of incomplete revascularization utilized both multivariable analysis and propensity score matching to account for selection factors.

Incomplete revascularization was performed in 133 patients (16%). The most common reasons for incomplete revascularization were small vessels (55%) and massive calcification (32%). Mortality until 180 days after CABG was higher (n=32; 24%) after incomplete than after complete revascularization (n=105; 15%; P=0.005). By logistic multivariable regression, incomplete revascularization was identified as an independent risk factor for death (Odds ratio, 1.8; P=0.015). By time-related analysis, incomplete revascularization predominantly affected the early period after CABG (P=0.001). Aortic cross clamping time was only slightly shorter for the group with incomplete (59+/-27 min (median: 55 min) vs. 63+/-26 min (median: 58 min); P=0.1).

Incomplete revascularization increases the early risk of death after CABG in patients aged 75 years and older. The potential compensating benefit of the shorter aortic cross clamping time does not outweigh the advantages of complete revascularization. Thus, in the era of high-volume interventional approaches and minimally invasive techniques, the advantages of complete revascularization need to be considered.