Radial artery vs saphenous vein graft used as the second conduit for surgical myocardial revascularization: long-term clinical follow-up

Background There is ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of the radial artery (RA) as an aortocoronary conduit, with few solid data regarding long-term clinical results. We sought to determine if the use of the RA as the second arterial conduit, beside left internal thoracic artery (LITA), would improve long-term clinical outcome after CABG as compared to saphenous vein graft (SVG). Methods Between March 2001 and November 2003, 200 patients underwent isolated CABG and were randomized in 1:1 fashion to receive either LITA and RA grafts or LITA and SVGs. The primary end point was composite of cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and need for repeat myocardial revascularization (either surgical or percutaneous). Results There was no significant difference in absolute survival, with 12 deaths in each group during the study period (log rank = 0.01, p = 0.979). There were 3 and 2 cardiac deaths in RA and SVG groups, respectively. There was no difference in long-term clinical outcome between the groups (log rank = 0.450, p = 0.509). Eleven patients in RA group had one or more non-fatal events; 7 patients suffered a myocardial infarction, 9 patients underwent percutaneous coronary angioplasty, and 1 patient required redo coronary surgery. Likewise, 13 patients in SVG group had non-fatal event; 7 patients had myocardial infarction, 13 patients had percutaneous coronary intervention and 3 patients required redo coronary surgery. Angiograms were performed in 23 patients in RA group (patency rate 92 %) and 24 in SVG group (patency rate 86 %) (p = 0.67). Conclusion In this small randomised study our data indicate that there is no difference in the 8 year clinical outcomes in relatively young patients between those having a RA or a saphenous vein graft used as a second conduit, beside LITA, for surgical myocardial revascularisation.