Speciality Medical Dialogues
    • facebook
    • twitter
    Login Register
    • facebook
    • twitter
    Login Register
    • Medical Dialogues
    • Education Dialogues
    • Business Dialogues
    • Medical Jobs
    • Medical Matrimony
    • MD Brand Connect
    Speciality Medical Dialogues
    • Editorial
    • News
        • Anesthesiology
        • Cancer
        • Cardiac Sciences
        • Critical Care
        • Dentistry
        • Dermatology
        • Diabetes and Endo
        • Diagnostics
        • ENT
        • Featured Research
        • Gastroenterology
        • Geriatrics
        • Medicine
        • Nephrology
        • Neurosciences
        • Nursing
        • Obs and Gynae
        • Ophthalmology
        • Orthopaedics
        • Paediatrics
        • Parmedics
        • Pharmacy
        • Psychiatry
        • Pulmonology
        • Radiology
        • Surgery
        • Urology
    • Practice Guidelines
        • Anesthesiology Guidelines
        • Cancer Guidelines
        • Cardiac Sciences Guidelines
        • Critical Care Guidelines
        • Dentistry Guidelines
        • Dermatology Guidelines
        • Diabetes and Endo Guidelines
        • Diagnostics Guidelines
        • ENT Guidelines
        • Featured Practice Guidelines
        • Gastroenterology Guidelines
        • Geriatrics Guidelines
        • Medicine Guidelines
        • Nephrology Guidelines
        • Neurosciences Guidelines
        • Obs and Gynae Guidelines
        • Ophthalmology Guidelines
        • Orthopaedics Guidelines
        • Paediatrics Guidelines
        • Psychiatry Guidelines
        • Pulmonology Guidelines
        • Radiology Guidelines
        • Surgery Guidelines
        • Urology Guidelines
    LoginRegister
    Speciality Medical Dialogues
    LoginRegister
    • Home
    • Editorial
    • News
      • Anesthesiology
      • Cancer
      • Cardiac Sciences
      • Critical Care
      • Dentistry
      • Dermatology
      • Diabetes and Endo
      • Diagnostics
      • ENT
      • Featured Research
      • Gastroenterology
      • Geriatrics
      • Medicine
      • Nephrology
      • Neurosciences
      • Nursing
      • Obs and Gynae
      • Ophthalmology
      • Orthopaedics
      • Paediatrics
      • Parmedics
      • Pharmacy
      • Psychiatry
      • Pulmonology
      • Radiology
      • Surgery
      • Urology
    • Practice Guidelines
      • Anesthesiology Guidelines
      • Cancer Guidelines
      • Cardiac Sciences Guidelines
      • Critical Care Guidelines
      • Dentistry Guidelines
      • Dermatology Guidelines
      • Diabetes and Endo Guidelines
      • Diagnostics Guidelines
      • ENT Guidelines
      • Featured Practice Guidelines
      • Gastroenterology Guidelines
      • Geriatrics Guidelines
      • Medicine Guidelines
      • Nephrology Guidelines
      • Neurosciences Guidelines
      • Obs and Gynae Guidelines
      • Ophthalmology Guidelines
      • Orthopaedics Guidelines
      • Paediatrics Guidelines
      • Psychiatry Guidelines
      • Pulmonology Guidelines
      • Radiology Guidelines
      • Surgery Guidelines
      • Urology Guidelines
    • Home
    • News
    • Cardiac Sciences
    • Radial-Artery grafts...

    Radial-Artery grafts lead to improved outcomes of CABG

    Written by Medha Baranwal Baranwal Published On 2018-05-03T20:25:34+05:30  |  Updated On 3 May 2018 8:25 PM IST
    Radial-Artery grafts lead to improved outcomes of CABG

    The use of radial-artery grafts for multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improved post-operative outcomes as compared to saphenous-vein grafts, according to a new study published in New England Journal of Medicine.


    The study was conducted by John Puskas, MD, of Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, and colleagues wherein they performed a patient-level combined analysis of randomized, controlled trials to compare radial-artery grafts and saphenous-vein grafts for CABG.


    For carrying out the study, the researchers performed Radial Artery Database International Alliance (RADIAL) meta-analysis of patient-level trial data. Six trials were identified. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization. The secondary outcome was graft patency on follow-up angiography. Mixed-effects Cox regression models were used to estimate the treatment effect on the outcomes.


    RADIAL looked at outcomes from 1,036 patients across six trials (534 received radial-artery grafts and 502 received saphenous-vein grafts).


    On the basis of the trials, following inferences were made:




    • the incidence of adverse cardiac events was significantly lower in association with radial-artery grafts than with saphenous-vein grafts

    • the use of radial-artery grafts was associated with a significantly lower risk of occlusion

    • the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction or repeat revascularization was reduced by the multi-artery strategy instead of vein conduit

    • the use of radial-artery grafts was associated with a nominally lower incidence of myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization, as compared with the use of the saphenous vein graft

    • Death from any cause numerically went in the same direction but with a wide confidence interval (15 versus 17 per 1,000 patient-years, HR 0.90, P=0.68), Mario Gaudino, MD, of New York-Presbyterian and Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, reported at the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) meeting in San Diego.


    The findings "should guide a genuine change" in how CABG is done, argued Dr. Puskas. "Surgeons in North America and Europe presently use the radial artery in less than 8% of all coronary bypass procedures."


    Puskas called RADIAL a landmark study -- and not only for being the first late-breaking study in AATS's more than 100-year history.


    "While retrospective observational studies have suggested that this [benefit of radial conduit] might be the case, several randomized controlled trials of radial artery versus saphenous vein grafts as the second conduit in coronary bypass operations have failed to prove a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes with the radial artery, because these individual trials have had too few patients enrolled to reach statistical significance," he told MedPage Today.


    The authors concluded that as compared with the use of saphenous-vein grafts, the use of radial-artery grafts for CABG resulted in a lower rate of adverse cardiac events and a higher rate of patency at 5 years of follow-up.


    For further information, click on the link: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716026

    bypass surgeryCABGcoronary artery bypass graftingDr John PuskasJohn PuskasNEJMNew England Journal of MedicineRADIALradial arteryRadial Artery Database International Allianceradial-artery graftssaphenous-vein grafts
    Source : With inputs from NEJM

    Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2020 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

    Medha Baranwal Baranwal
    Medha Baranwal Baranwal
      Show Full Article
      Next Story
      Similar Posts
      NO DATA FOUND

      • Email: info@medicaldialogues.in
      • Phone: 011 - 4372 0751

      Website Last Updated On : 12 Oct 2022 7:06 AM GMT
      Company
      • About Us
      • Contact Us
      • Our Team
      • Reach our Editor
      • Feedback
      • Submit Article
      Ads & Legal
      • Advertise
      • Advertise Policy
      • Terms and Conditions
      • Privacy Policy
      • Editorial Policy
      • Comments Policy
      • Disclamier
      Medical Dialogues is health news portal designed to update medical and healthcare professionals but does not limit/block other interested parties from accessing our general health content. The health content on Medical Dialogues and its subdomains is created and/or edited by our expert team, that includes doctors, healthcare researchers and scientific writers, who review all medical information to keep them in line with the latest evidence-based medical information and accepted health guidelines by established medical organisations of the world.

      Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement or prescription.Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. You can check out disclaimers here. © 2025 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd

      © 2025 - Medical Dialogues. All Rights Reserved.
      Powered By: Hocalwire
      X
      We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok