Background: The superiority of total arterial revascularization over the conventional method is a matter of continuous debate. Therefore, we aimed to compare early surgical and hospital outcomes of the total artery and conventional revascularization strategies in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
Methods: The study included 60 patients who underwent primary elective CABG from 2018 to 2020. Patients were grouped according to the revascularization strategy into two groups. Group 1 included patients who had conventional revascularization using left internal mammary artery (LIMA) and vein grafts (n= 30), and group 2 included patients who had total arterial coronary revascularization (TACR) (n= 30).
Results: Patient who had TACR were significantly younger (48.43 ± 11.72 vs. 55.63 ± 3.97 years; P= 0.003). TACR patients had shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (53.70 ± 9.91 vs 61.83 ± 9.60 min; P= 0.002) and ischemia times (38.20 ± 7.78 vs 44.03 ± 7.23 min; P= 0.004). Blood loss and transfusion were significantly higher in patients in the conventional group (P= 0.01 and ˂0.001, respectively). TACR was associated with shorter mechanical ventilation (3.83 ± 0.95 vs. 4.80 ± 1.40 hours; P= 0.003), ICU (1.13 ± 0.35 vs. 1.47 ± 0.51 days; P= 0.004) and hospital stay (4.47 ± 0.63 vs. 6.04 ± 0.71 days; P= 0.001). After six months, angina and dyspnea classes were significantly better in the TACR group.
Conclusions: The debate about the optimal CABG conduit is ongoing. Total arterial revascularization could be associated with favorable short and mid-term results.