Tạp chí Tim mạch học Việt Nam

Article detail

Article detail description

Home
BÀN LUẬN Issue: Số 108 BỆNH MẠCH VÀNH

Coronary artery bypass surgery: Evidence-based strategies

Phan Quang Thuận: Bệnh viện Đại học Y Dược Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh; Phạm Trần Việt Chương: Bệnh viện Đại học Y Dược thành phố Hồ Chí Minh; Nguyễn Hoàng Định: Bệnh viện Đại học Y Dược thành phố Hồ Chí Minh;
Published: March 31, 2024
Views: 105
DOI 10.58354/jvc.108.2024.692

Abstract

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the established standard for treating coronary artery reperfusion issues in both diabetic patients and those with complex coronary anatomies. Nevertheless, a significant number of patients continue to decline this surgical option due to concerns related to patient awareness, fear of pain and the surgical scars. This reluctance poses challenges in convincing patients to opt for CABG. This perception is shaped not only by the quality of communication between the surgeon and the patient but also relies heavily on the recommendations of other healthcare professionals within the cardiology team.

Our literature review, conducted using keywords from reputable medical databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, focused on identifying optimal approaches to accessing coronary artery bypass surgery.

Currently, the prevailing trend in CABG is the development of minimally invasive techniques and robotic. These advancements aim to reduce the invasiveness of the procedure, making it more appealing and acceptable to patients. Additionally, effective communication with patients and the sharing of knowledge with non-surgical colleagues within the coronary artery disease (CAD) treatment team play pivotal roles in selecting the most suitable reperfusion method for patients. This, in turn, contributes not only to the enhancement of CAD treatment but also to the advancement of percutaneous coronary intervention.

References

1.
Sanchis-Gomar F, Perez-Quilis C, Leischik R, et al. Epidemiology of coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndrome. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(13):256. doi:10.21037/atm.2016.06.33.
2.
Vaduganathan M, Mensah George A, Turco Justine V, et al. The Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2022;80(25):2361-2371. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.11.005.
3.
Gaudino MFL, Spadaccio C, Taggart DP. State-of-the-Art Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Patient Selection, Graft Selection, and Optimizing Outcomes. Interv Cardiol Clin. 2019;8(2):173-198. doi:10.1016/j.iccl.2018.11.007.
4.
Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145(3):e18-e114. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001038.
5.
Mendonca KM, Andrade TM. Patient's Perception About Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;30(5):544-551. doi:10.5935/1678-9741.20150060.
6.
Shahmoradi L, Rezaei N, Rezayi S, et al. Educational approaches for patients with heart surgery: a systematic review of main features and effects. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2022;22(1):292. doi:10.1186/s12872-022-02728-0.
7.
Wilson JL, Whyte RI, Gangadharan SP, et al. Teamwork and Communication Skills in Cardiothoracic Surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103(4):1049-1054. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.01.067.
8.
Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9867):629-638. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60141-5.
9.
Serruys PW, Morice M-C, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Severe Coronary Artery Disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;360(10):961-972. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0804626.
10.
Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Mack MJ, et al. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(17):2125-2134. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr213.
11.
Thuijs D, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10206):1325-1334. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31997-X.
12.
Fearon WF, Zimmermann FM, De Bruyne B, et al. Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided PCI as Compared with Coronary Bypass Surgery. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(2):128-137. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2112299.
13.
Zimmermann FM, Ding VY, Pijls NHJ, et al. Fractional Flow Reserve–Guided PCI or Coronary Bypass Surgery for 3-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease: 3-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 3 Trial. Circulation. 2023;148(12):950-958. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.065770.
14.
Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(25):2375-2384. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1211585.
15.
Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Dangas GD, et al. Long-Term Survival Following Multivessel Revascularization in Patients With Diabetes: The FREEDOM Follow-On Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(6):629-638. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.001.
16.
Sun LY, Gaudino M, Chen RJ, et al. Long-term Outcomes in Patients With Severely Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5(6):631-641. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0239.
17.
Bianco V, Kilic A, Mulukutla S, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with reduced ejection fraction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;161(3):1022-1031 e1025. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.06.159.
18.
Wolff G, Dimitroulis D, Andreotti F, et al. Survival Benefits of Invasive Versus Conservative Strategies in Heart Failure in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis. Circ Heart Fail. 2017;10(1). doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.116.003255.
19.
Howlett JG, Stebbins A, Petrie MC, et al. CABG Improves Outcomes in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: 10-Year Follow-Up of the STICH Trial. JACC Heart Fail. 2019;7(10):878-887. doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2019.04.018.
20.
Perera D, Clayton T, O'Kane PD, et al. Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(15):1351-1360. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2206606.
21.
Volz S, Redfors B, Angeras O, et al. Long-term mortality in patients with ischaemic heart failure revascularized with coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). Eur Heart J. 2021;42(27):2657-2664. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab273.
22.
Liga R, Colli A, Taggart DP, et al. Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: For Whom and How. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023;12(6):e026943. doi:10.1161/JAHA.122.026943.
23.
Liao GZ, Li YM, Bai L, et al. Revascularization vs. Conservative Medical Treatment in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease and Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8818958. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2021.818958.
24.
Li X, Xiao F, Zhang S. Coronary revascularisation in patients with chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease: A meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(11):e14506. doi:10.1111/ijcp.14506.
25.
Virani SS, Newby LK, Arnold SV, et al. 2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2023;0(0). doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001168.
26.
Aldea GS, Bakaeen FG, Pal J, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines on Arterial Conduits for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101(2):801-809. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.09.100.
27.
Dimagli A, Soletti G, Jr., Harik L, et al. Angiographic Outcomes for Arterial and Venous Conduits Used in CABG. J Clin Med. 2023;12(5). doi:10.3390/jcm12052022.
28.
Gillmore T, Rocha RV, Fremes SE. Evidence-based selection of the second and third arterial conduit. JTCVS Open. 2021;566-69. doi:10.1016/j.xjon.2020.11.009.
29.
Yokoyama Y, Takagi H, Kuno T. Graft Patency of a Second Conduit for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2022;34(1):102-109. doi:10.1053/j.semtcvs.2021.02.002.
30.
Neumann F-J, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. European Heart Journal. 2019;40(2):87-165. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394.
31.
Gaudino MFL, Leonard JR, Taggart DP. Lessons learned from Radial Artery Database International ALliance (RADIAL). Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;7(5):598-603. doi:10.21037/acs.2018.03.15.
32.
Raza S, Chang C, Deo SV, et al. Current role of saphenous vein graft in coronary artery bypass grafting. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;34(Suppl 3):245-250. doi:10.1007/s12055-018-0759-3.
33.
Xenogiannis I, Zenati M, Bhatt DL, et al. Saphenous Vein Graft Failure: From Pathophysiology to Prevention and Treatment Strategies. Circulation. 2021;144(9):728-745. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.052163.
34.
Alexander JH, Hafley G, Harrington RA, et al. Efficacy and safety of edifoligide, an E2F transcription factor decoy, for prevention of vein graft failure following coronary artery bypass graft surgery: PREVENT IV: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;294(19):2446-2454. doi:10.1001/jama.294.19.2446.
35.
Gaudino M, Antoniades C, Benedetto U, et al. Mechanisms, Consequences, and Prevention of Coronary Graft Failure. Circulation. 2017;136(18):1749-1764. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.027597.
36.
Lopes RD, Hafley GE, Allen KB, et al. Endoscopic versus open vein-graft harvesting in coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(3):235-244. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0900708.
37.
Eid RE, Wang L, Kuzman M, et al. Endoscopic versus open saphenous vein graft harvest for lower extremity bypass in critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 2014;59(1):136-144. doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2013.06.072.
38.
Pinheiro BB, Dashwood M, Souza DSR. The "No-touch" Harvesting Technique Revives the Position of the Saphenous Vein as an Important Conduit in CABG Surgery: 30-year Anniversary. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;36(5):I-III. doi:10.21470/1678-9741-2021-0959.
39.
Yamane Y, Uchida N, Okubo S, et al. Impact of the size mismatch between saphenous vein graft and coronary artery on graft patency. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;65(1):25-31. doi:10.1007/s11748-016-0694-4.
40.
Wei Z, Ma X, Li J, et al. Distal end side-to-side anastomosis of sequential coronary bypass for size mismatched saphenous vein grafts and coronary arteries. Perfusion. 202202676591221100738. doi:10.1177/02676591221100738.
41.
Harskamp RE, Alexander JH, Schulte PJ, et al. Vein graft preservation solutions, patency, and outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: follow-up from the PREVENT IV randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(8):798-805. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2014.87.
42.
Vallely MP, Seco M, Ramponi F, et al. Total-arterial, anaortic, off-pump coronary artery surgery: Why, when, and how. JTCVS Tech. 2021;10140-148. doi:10.1016/j.xjtc.2021.09.050.
43.
Dominici C, Chello M, Saeed S. Outcomes of total arterial revascularization vs conventional revascularization in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A narrative review of major studies. Pak J Med Sci. 2022;38(5):1395-1400. doi:10.12669/pjms.38.5.5674.
44.
Rocha RV, Tam DY, Karkhanis R, et al. Long-term Outcomes Associated With Total Arterial Revascularization vs Non–Total Arterial Revascularization. JAMA Cardiology. 2020;5(5):507-514. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2019.6104.
45.
Ren J, Royse C, Royse A. Late Clinical Outcomes of Total Arterial Revascularization or Multiple Arterial Grafting Compared to Conventional Single Arterial with Saphenous Vein Grafting for Coronary Surgery. J Clin Med. 2023;12(7). doi:10.3390/jcm12072516.
46.
Rayol SC, Van den Eynde J, Cavalcanti LRP, et al. Total Arterial Coronary Bypass Graft Surgery is Associated with Better Long-Term Survival in Patients with Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: a Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;36(1):78-85. doi:10.21470/1678-9741-2020-0653.
47.
Gaudino M, Sandner S, Di Giammarco G, et al. The Use of Intraoperative Transit Time Flow Measurement for Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Systematic Review of the Evidence and Expert Opinion Statements. Circulation. 2021;144(14):1160-1171. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.054311.
48.
Quan Z, Zhang X, Song X, et al. The use of intraoperative transit time flow measurement can reduce postoperative myocardial injury. Journal of Cardiac Surgery. 2022;37(12):4246-4253. doi:10.1111/jocs.16818.
49.
Kim HH, Kim JH, Lee SH, et al. Transit-Time Flow Measurement and Outcomes in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Patients. Seminars in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2023;35(2):217-227. doi:https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semtcvs.2022.02.011.
50.
Kageyama S, Serruys PW, Ninomiya K, et al. Impact of On-pump and Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting on 10-Year Mortality versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery. 2023. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezad240.
51.
Benedetto U, Puskas J, Kappetein AP, et al. Off-Pump Versus On-Pump Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(6):729-740. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2019.05.063.
52.
Forouzannia SM, Forouzannia SK, Yarahmadi P, et al. Early and mid-term outcomes of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with triple-vessel coronary artery disease: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2023;18(1):140. doi:10.1186/s13019-023-02258-6.
53.
Sheikhy A, Fallahzadeh A, Forouzannia K, et al. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery outcomes in patients with severe left ventricle dysfunction: inverse probability weighted study. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. 2022;22(1):488. doi:10.1186/s12872-022-02895-0.
54.
Zhou Z, Liang M, Zhuang X, et al. Long-term Outcomes After On-Pump vs Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Ischemic Cardiomyopathy. Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2023;115(6):1421-1428. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.12.063.
55.
Dieberg G, Smart NA, King N. On- vs. off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2016;223201-211. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.08.250.
56.
Gomes WJ, Gomes EN, Bertini A, Jr., et al. The Anaortic Technique with Bilateral Internal Thoracic Artery Grafting - Filling the Gap in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;36(3):397-405. doi:10.21470/1678-9741-2020-0451.
57.
Mohd SK. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Surgical Anastomosis: Tips and Tricks. In The Current Perspectives on Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. 2019.
58.
Nakamura M, Yaku H, Ako J, et al. JCS/JSCVS 2018 Guideline on Revascularization of Stable Coronary Artery Disease. Circ J. 2022;86(3):477-588. doi:10.1253/circj.CJ-20-1282.
59.
Bonatti J, Wallner S, Crailsheim I, et al. Minimally invasive and robotic coronary artery bypass grafting-a 25-year review. J Thorac Dis. 2021;13(3):1922-1944. doi:10.21037/jtd-20-1535.
60.
Melly L, Torregrossa G, Lee T, et al. Fifty years of coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10(3):1960-1967. doi:10.21037/jtd.2018.02.43.
61.
Bonatti J, Wallner S, Crailsheim I, et al. Minimally invasive and robotic coronary artery bypass grafting-a 25-year review. 2072-1439.
62.
Yu L, Zhu K, Du N, et al. Comparison of hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2022;17(1):147. doi:10.1186/s13019-022-01903-w.
63.
Nguyen HD, Vo TA, Nguyen TTT, et al. Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass: preliminary results at University Medical Center of Ho Chi Minh city. Vietnam Journal of Science, Technology and Engineering. 2017;59(4):47-50. doi:10.31276/VJSTE.59(4).47.
64.
Saha S, Beach MC. The impact of patient-centered communication on patients' decision making and evaluations of physicians: a randomized study using video vignettes. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(3):386-392. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.023.
65.
Kezerle L, Yohanan E, Cohen A, et al. The impact of Heart Team discussion on decision making for coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease. J Card Surg. 2020;35(10):2719-2724. doi:10.1111/jocs.14892.

Files

Article Views105
Document Views0
Downloads0
Section BÀN LUẬN
Issue Số 108
Category BỆNH MẠCH VÀNH

Related articles section label

Related articles

Related articles category hint

More articles

NT-proBNP reflects myocardial injury phenotype in acute coronary syndromes: A cross-sectional study in a predominantly unstable angina population

Objective: To evaluate the value of NT-proBNP in relation to myocardial injury markers and the extent of coronary artery disease, thereby clarifying its role according to myocardial injury phenotype in acute coronary syn...

Chi tiết bài báo
PDF
DOI: 10.58354/jvc.120.2026.1306
89
Đoàn Ngọc Anh; Nguyễn Quốc Khoa; Dương Thị Thu Hằng; Võ Lương Tài; Trương Thị Huyền; Đặng Thế Việt; Võ Phạm Minh Thư; Đặng Thị Phương Thảo

Study of left ventricular function using tissue-tracking echocardiography in patients with chronic coronary syndrome without indications for coronary revascularization

Objectives: To evaluate the index of global left ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS) and its relationship with some clinical and paraclinical parameters in patients with chronic coronary artery syndrome without indicat...

Chi tiết bài báo
DOI: 10.58354/jvc.111.2024.866
114
Mai Thị Thương; Nguyễn Văn Thành; Đỗ Doãn Lợi