Status and phase
Conditions
Treatments
About
There is a remarkable lack of randomized trials concerning the potential benefit of using arterial conduits for coronary bypass surgery. This is the purpose of the present trial. Exclusive use of arterial conduits might result in improved conduit viability, reduced risk of recurrent angina, myocardial infarction and other cardiac events, reduced need for antianginal medication, improved functional status and possibly improved long term survival. The patients will be followed for ten years after surgery.
Full description
I: Background
There is a remarkable lack of randomized studies concerning the potential benefit of using arterial grafts for coronary revascularization. Numerous observational reports consistently confirm, that the use of a LIMA-LAD grafts is not associated with increased peroperative mortality or morbidity and will result in an approximately 10% improved survival at 10 years postoperatively.
The average patency for LIMA-LAD grafts is 80%-85% after 10 years. 50% of the vein grafts are occluded. LIMA-LAD grafting reduces the risk of of late myocardial infarction, other cardiac events and reoperation, however the effect on recurrent angina or need of antianginal medication is less certain.
The question, whether bilateral IMA grafting has long term benefits compared to single IMA grafts is controversial. Numerous observational retrospective studies fail to demonstrate convincingly, that bilateral IMA grafting reduces long term mortality and improves the frequency of late cardiac events and recurrent angina, but these data are difficult to compare due to selection bias. It is not quite clear, if a minimal benefit represents a true difference in outcome, or if two different populations are compared.
Whether an increased degree of arterial revascularization, including radial artery (RA) and IMA grafts, will result in an improved long term survival, reduced risk for recurrent angina, reinfarction, antianginal medication and improved quality of life, is unclear.
A randomized trial has not yet been performed and current observational 5 year follow-up data are promising, but cannot document an anticipated benefit from a more stringent scientific point of view.
II: Hypothesis
Coronary bypass grafting with the use of LIMA + RIMA + RA (total arterial revascularization) vs. LIMA + saphenous vein grafts will result in equal peroperative mortality and morbidity rates and improve long term outcome in terms of improved patency rates, reduced risk of recurrent angina, infarction and other cardiac events, reduced need for antianginal medication, improved functional status and possibly improved long term survival.
III: Aim of the study
Prospective randomized trial comparing coronary bypass grafting with the use of LIMA + RIMA + RA vs. LIMA + saphenous vein grafts in patients with 2 or 3 vessel disease (more than 1 graft anticipated) with respect to:
IV: Design & methods
Design
Prospective randomized trial. Patients will be randomized into 2 groups:
Group A: Arterial revascularization with LIMA + RIMA + RA.
Group B: LIMA and saphenous vein grafts are used as graft material.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Surgery, anaesthesia and postoperative care
Surgery, anaesthesia and postoperative care are performed according to current guidelines at our institution.
Endpoints and follow-up
The study is designed with respect to two primary endpoints:
Secondary endpoints:
According to these endpoints the follow-up is planned as:
Statistics
Sample size is calculated with respect to the primary endpoint graft patency at 1 and 5 years. A difference of 10-15% of patency in favour of the radial artery as bypass graft is regarded as clinically relevant. Observational data on radial artery patency indicate patency rates of 90-95% at 1 year and 85% at 5 years, while saphenous vein graft patency is 80-90% at 1 year and 60-70% at 5 years.
To detect such a difference (15% improved patency for RA grafts, 85% vs 70%) with a 90% probability (type 2 error 0.10) and a significance level of 0.05, the sample size for each group would be n=150.
A 15% difference in patency rates at 5 years is in our opinion an assumption that probably overestimates the vein graft patency, which means, that a sample size of 150 patients in each group should guarantee with a high probability a statistically significant outcome.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
331 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal