Background: Complete arterial coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) offers the potential to improve long-term results. However, an increased perioperative risk has been controversially discussed. New operative techniques (skeletonization of the ITA/ T-grafts/utilization of the radial artery (RA)) may decrease perioperative risk. We compared the outcome after conventional with that after complete arterial CABG.
Material and methods: Three consecutive groups of patients were analyzed. In group I (n = 50), CABG was performed using left ITA and vein grafts. The other two groups received complete arterial CABG with either both ITA's (group II; n = 52) or left ITA and RA (group III; n = 52).
Results: A mean of 3.9+/-0.8 (I) versus 4.2+/-0.8 (II) and 3.9+/-0.9 (III) anastomoses were performed per patient (ns). Mean operating time was significantly prolonged in group II (II: 252+/-54; p<0.0001; vs. I: 191+/-36; III: 203+/-33). Mean ischemic time was significantly prolonged in group II and III (II:65+/-20; p<0.0001; III: 68+/-16; p<0.0001; vs. I: 51+/-15). Mean bypass time (I: 83+/-23; II: 95+/-41; III: 91+/-21), the rate of postoperative complications and in-hospital mortality (I: n = 0; II: n = 2; III: n = 0; ns) showed no significant differences.
Conclusions: Complete arterial CABG using modern surgical techniques is as safe as the conventional surgical approach using left ITA and vein graft.