![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a well-established therapy for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, with excellent short- and medium-term results. This is best illustrated by studies comparing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) with CABG surgery, where CABG continues to offer better event-free survival. However, there has been increasing concern about the long-term patency of vein grafts utilized for CABG when compared with arterial grafts. Some have suggested that revascularization with arterial grafts rather than vein grafts may result in improved outcomes following CABG. This is particularly important when one considers that graft occlusion can result in recurrence of disabling angina, rehospitalization, reintervention and death. To date, however, multiple arterial grafts have yet to become the standard approach for patients undergoing CABG. This is best exemplified by reports from large registries suggesting that the use of multiple arterial grafting is limited to approximately 10% of all patients undergoing CABG. In this article, we will provide some of the evidence outlining the risk and benefits of multiple arterial grafting, but more importantly, begin to explore why the utilization of multiple arterial grafting does not appear to be increasing significantly.
Financial & competing interests disclosure
The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.
No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.