Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 16, 2025

Mouse Heterotopic Cervical Cardiac Transplantation Utilizing Vascular Cuffs
Published on: June 23, 2022
Single Versus Bilateral Internal Thoracic Artery Grafting in Patients on Chronic Dialysis
Ariel Farkash1, Amit Gordon1, Nadav Teich1
1Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Insights
Bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) revascularization showed a trend towards better survival in dialysis patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), but no significant long-term benefit was proven. Further research is needed for these complex cardiac surgery patients.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Nephrology
- Oncology
Background:
- Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) on chronic dialysis represent a high-risk group for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
- The choice between single internal thoracic artery (SITA) and bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) revascularization in this population remains debated.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the outcomes of SITA versus BITA revascularization in patients with multivessel CAD undergoing isolated CABG while on chronic dialysis.
- To assess early mortality, adverse events, and long-term survival in this specific patient cohort.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 77 dialysis patients with multivessel CAD who underwent isolated CABG between 1996 and 2021.
- Patients were divided into SITA (n=58) and BITA (n=17) groups, with matching for age and EuroSCORE II.
- Outcomes analyzed included early mortality, adverse events (stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding), and long-term survival.
Main Results:
- Early mortality and adverse events were similar between SITA and BITA groups in both unmatched and matched cohorts.
- Median survival was significantly longer in the BITA group (5.64 years) compared to the SITA group (1.22 years) in the unmatched cohort (p=0.005).
- In the matched cohort, five-year survival did not differ significantly between SITA and BITA groups (p=0.258), and BITA revascularization was not an independent predictor of survival.
Conclusions:
- While a trend favoring BITA revascularization was observed in the unmatched cohort, no clear long-term survival benefit was demonstrated in dialysis patients undergoing CABG.
- Age and EuroSCORE II were significant predictors of mortality in this high-risk population.
- The choice of SITA versus BITA in dialysis patients requires careful consideration, as survival benefits are not definitively established.
Abstract:
Objective: To evaluate the outcome of single vs. bilateral internal thoracic artery (SITA vs. BITA) revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary disease referred for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) while on chronic dialysis. Methods: This retrospective analysis included all the patients with multivessel disease on chronic dialysis who underwent isolated CABG in our center during 1996-2021, utilizing SITA or BITA revascularization. We further matched the groups according to patient age and EuroSCORE II ±0.5. Results: Of the 7547 patients with multivessel disease who underwent CABG, 77 were on chronic dialysis. Of these, 2 had incomplete follow-up data, 58 underwent SITA, and 17 BITA revascularization. Comparing the SITA group with the BITA, the mean age was higher (67.8 vs. 58.6 years, standardized mean difference 1.035); the median (interquartile range) EuroSCORE II was higher (3.73 (1.78-6.23) vs. 1.78 (1.38-3.50), standardized mean difference 0.934); and comorbidities were more prevalent. Early mortality did not differ between the BITA and SITA groups in the unmatched cohort (11.8% vs. 15.5%, p > 0.999) or in the matched cohort (12.5% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.999). Other early adverse events such as early stroke, myocardial infarction, and bleeding requiring re-exploration were also similar. The median survival was 1.22 ± 0.5 years for the SITA and 5.64 ± 1.50 years for the BITA group. The respective five-year survival rates were 22.5 ± 5.9% and 58.35 ± 13.80%, p = 0.005. For the matched cohort, comprising 16 patient pairs, the five-year survival did not differ between the groups (27.8 ± 11.7% vs. 54.7 ± 14.7%, p = 0.258). In multivariable analysis, adjusted to EuroSCORE II and age, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for BITA revascularization was insignificant, 0.638 (95% CI 0.25-1.62), p = 0.343. The hazard ratios for age and EuroSCORE II were 1.061 (95% CI 1.023-1.101), p = 0.002 and 1.155 (95% CI 1.070-1.246), p < 0.001. Conclusions: Despite a trend in favor of BITA utilization, no clear long-term survival benefit was demonstrated for BITA revascularization in patients on chronic dialysis after CABG.
Related Concept Videos
Hemodialysis I: Introduction
Kidney Transplant I: Introduction
Hemodialysis II: Procedure and Complications

