Association of Radial Artery Graft vs Saphenous Vein Graft With Long-term Cardiovascular Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance Observational studies have suggested that the use of radial artery grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting may improve clinical outcomes compared with the use of saphenous vein grafts, but this has not been confirmed in randomized trials. Objective To compare clinical outcomes between patients receiving radial artery vs saphenous vein grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting after long-term follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants Patient-level pooled analysis comparing radial artery vs saphenous vein graft in adult patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting from 5 countries (Australia, Italy, Serbia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom), with enrollment from 1997 to 2009 and follow-up completed in 2019. Interventions Patients were randomized to undergo either radial artery (n = 534) or saphenous vein (n = 502) grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization and the secondary outcome was a composite of death or myocardial infarction. Results A total of 1036 patients were randomized (mean age, 66.6 years in the radial artery group vs 67.1 years in the saphenous vein group; 376 [70.4%] men in the radial artery group vs 351 [69.9%] in the saphenous vein group); 942 (90.9%) of the originally randomized patients completed 10 years of follow-up (510 in the radial artery group). At a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 10 (10-11) years, the use of the radial artery, compared with the saphenous vein, in coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization (220 vs 237 total events; 41 vs 47 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.61-0.88]; P < .001) and of the composite of death or myocardial infarction (188 vs 193 total events; 35 vs 38 events per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63-0.94]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance In this individual participant data meta-analysis with a median follow-up of 10 years, among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, the use of the radial artery compared with the saphenous vein was associated with a lower risk of a composite of cardiovascular outcomes. This meta-analysis uses individual participant data from clinical trials to estimate associations between radial artery vs saphenous vein grafting techniques and cardiovascular outcomes at 10 years among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Question Is the use of the radial artery instead of the saphenous vein for coronary artery bypass surgery associated with a lower risk of adverse cardiac events in the long term? Findings In this individual participant data meta-analysis from 5 randomized clinical trials that included 1036 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, randomization to receive radial artery compared with saphenous vein graft was associated with an incidence of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization of 41 vs 47 events per 1000 person-years after a median follow-up of 10 years, a difference that was statistically significant. Meaning Over 10 years of follow-up, radial artery graft compared with saphenous vein graft was associated with a lower risk of a composite of cardiovascular outcomes.