Objectives: We examined whether bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) revascularization is associated with any increased in-hospital mortality and complications compared with single internal thoracic artery (SITA) revascularization.
Background: Despite proven long-term benefits, BITA revascularization has been slow to be adopted because of fear of increased early morbidity.
Methods: We evaluated 1,697 consecutive patients undergoing BITA (n = 867) or SITA (n = 830) revascularization. We used propensity score analyses and adjusted risk models to address differences between arms.
Results: There were 20 (2.3%) deaths in the BITA group versus 26 (3.1%) in the SITA group (odds ratio 0.73, p = 0.30). Propensity analysis identified several parameters that affected the decision to use BITA. Adjusting for propensity score and all potential risk factors, the odds ratio for death with BITA versus SITA was practically 1. Bilateral internal thoracic artery revascularization did not increase the number of in-hospital complications with the possible exception of deep sternal wound infections (11 [1.3%] vs. 3 [0.4%], p = 0.057). In multivariate modeling BITA increased the risk of deep sternal wound infections only in emergent cases and in older patients; the excess risk was negligible among 1,206 patients (71.1% of total) who did not have emergent revascularization and were < or =70 years old (risk difference 0.3%, p = 0.74). There was no difference in length of stay after adjustment for propensity factors (mean 11.3 vs. 11.7 days, p = 0.66).
Conclusions: Bilateral internal thoracic artery revascularization grafting confers no increased risk for early death and does not prolong hospital stay. The small increase in the risk of deep sternal wound infections does not affect the majority of patients.