Does routine use of the radial artery increase complexity or morbidity of coronary bypass surgery?

Abstract

Despite increasing data supporting its use, the uptake of radial artery coronary bypass grafting by most surgeons remains low. This may partly be from perceptions that it increases risk or complexity of coronary surgery. Data on 151 patients who had radial grafts are compared with 179 concurrent nonrandomized controls that underwent conventional surgery using saphenous vein. Additionally, telephone interviews were conducted on 127 radial recipients to assess subjective outcome. Cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times were similar in both groups (72 versus 74 minutes and 20 versus 22 minutes). Morbidity was comparable (mortality 1% versus 2%; cerebral vascular accident 1% versus 2%; sternal infection 1% versus 2%; resternotomy 4% versus 6%). Of 127 patients contacted, 41 (32%) reported that they had experienced parasthesia, and 65 (51%) reported numbness related to radial harvest; of these, 75% reported their symptoms as resolved or resolving. Early angiography performed in 36 patients revealed a radial patency rate of 92%. Concerns about increased morbidity and mortality should not hinder adoption of radial artery grafting.