Multiple arterial grafts improve survival with coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting compared with percutaneous coronary interventions

Objective To compare long-term survival with multiple arterial coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (MultArt) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with multivessel disease (MVD). Methods We reviewed 12,615 patients with MVD with isolated primary CABG or PCI from 1993 to 2009. Patients with CABG (n = 6667) were grouped according to the number of arterial grafts into left internal thoracic artery (LITA)/saphenous vein (SV) (n = 5712) or MultArt (n = 955); patients with PCI (n = 5948) were grouped into balloon angioplasty (BA) (n = 1020), drug-eluting stent (DES) (n = 1686), and bare metal stent (BMS) (n = 3242). Results Unadjusted long-term survival was lower for CABG than PCI (15-year survival, 34% vs 46%; P < .001); however, in patients with MultArt, survival was greater than LITA/SV, BA, BMS (15-year survival, 65% vs 31%, 47%, 45%, respectively; P < .001), and DES (8-year survival, 87% vs 70%; P < .001). In matched analyses, 15-year survival of MultArt was higher than BA (66% vs 57%; P = .002), LITA/SV (64% vs 56%; P = .02), and BMS (5-year survival 94% vs 90%; P = .01), and similar to DES at 8 years. In multivariate analysis, compared with MultArt, LITA/SV had worse survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.52; P = .003). BMS (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.94; P < .001) and DES (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.88; P < .001) had improved survival versus LITA/SV but not versus MultArt (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.94-1.34; P = .21, and HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.21; P = .83, respectively). Secondary analyses for treatment crossover indicated lower survival for LITA/SV versus MultArt and PCI. Conclusions In patients with MVD undergoing primary revascularization, MultArt increased survival benefit versus LITA/SV compared with PCI. Use of MultArt must increase.