A systematic review and meta-analysis of internal thoracic artery harvesting techniques: Skeletonized vs pedicled
Arnaldo Dimagli, Marco Gemelli, Niraj Kumar, Matthias Mitra, Shubhra Sinha, Daniel Fudulu, Lamia Harik, Gianmarco Cancelli, Giovanni Soletti, Roberto Perezgrovas‐Olaria, Nikolaos Bonaros, Mario Gaudino, Gianni D. Angelini
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare clinical and angiographic outcomes of skeletonized versus pedicled internal thoracic artery for coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: A comprehensive search on Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and Scopus was performed from inception to December 2022. The primary outcome was follow-up mortality and graft failure. Secondary outcomes were repeat revascularization, cardiovascular death and operative mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and sternal wound complications (SWCs). Pooled estimate for follow-up outcomes was summarized as incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) while short-term outcomes were pooled as odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI. For all outcomes, inverse variance weighting was used for pooling. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies, including 7 randomized trials and 21 observational studies, for a total of 5664 patients in the skeletonized group and 7434 in the pedicled group, were included in the analysis. At a mean weighted follow-up of 4.8 years, there was no difference in mortality between the two groups (IRR 1.14; 95% CI 0.59-2.20). However, the skeletonized group had a higher incidence of graft failure compared to the pedicled group (IRR 1.87, 95% CI 1.33-2.63) but a lower risk of SWCs (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.30-0.60). There was no difference in short-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the pedicled harvesting technique, skeletonization of the internal thoracic artery is associated with higher rate of graft failure and lower risk of SWCs without mortality difference.