Total arterial coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with diabetes: an 8-year experience

Coronary artery bypass grafting using arterial conduits may improve survival and minimise harvest site complications. However, in diabetes, the outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting performed exclusively using arterial conduits are uncertain. We reviewed our experience with this approach.

From 1996 to 2008, 400 patients with diabetes (managed with oral hypoglycaemics, insulin or both) underwent primary isolated coronary artery bypass grafting for triple vessel coronary disease. In 246 (61.5%), total arterial revascularisation was achieved using single or bilateral internal thoracic arteries supplemented by one or more radial arteries (arterial group), while in the remaining 154 (38.5%), at least one venous conduit was used (mixed conduits group: mean 1.5 veins per patient). Propensity-score matching was used to adjust for bias.

Total arterial revascularisation patients were more likely to be younger (arterial: 63 ± 10 years vs mixed: 67 ± 10 years, P < 0.0001), of elective priority (85% vs 75%, P = 0.018) and less likely to have moderate-severe left ventricular dysfunction (23% vs 36%, P = 0.024). Use of bilateral internal thoracic arteries was similar between groups (16% vs 11%, P = 0.19). There was a comparable in-hospital mortality (1.9% vs 2.0%, P > 0.99) and major morbidities, except the arterial group who experienced less stroke (0.4% vs 3.2% vs P = 0.04) and harvest site infections (0.4% vs 4%, P = 0.016). Mean follow was 7.8 ± 3.7 years. Estimated survival at 12-year survival in the arterial group was 80% ± 3.2% vs 54% ± 5.5% (P < 0.0001). Subsequently, 103 propensity-score-matched patient pairs were created between the two groups. After matching, in-hospital mortality (1% vs 2%, P > 0.99) and major morbidities were similar, as was an estimated 12-year survival (69% ± 6.1% vs 59% ± 6.5%, P > 0.99).

The use of veins to supplement arterial conduits did not deleteriously affect survival. However, the significant number of patients receiving arterial grafts in both groups may have masked any potential difference. Greater numbers and longer follow-up will reveal the potential of this approach.