Barriers to the universal adoption of bilateral internal mammary artery grafting

• Internal mammary artery grafting is the “gold standard” of revascularization.
• Bilateral internal mammary artery grafting may improve long term survival.
• Information on outcomes of the technique from randomized trials is limited.
• The technique is not generic and may be prohibitive in certain patient subsets.
• Technical excellence is required for the procedure and it is challenging to teach.

The left internal mammary artery (LIMA) graft is considered the “gold standard” of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This conduit provides increased survival, symptomatic relief, increased freedom from myocardial infarction, and increased freedom from re-intervention when compared to saphenous venous grafting. It has a remarkable long term patency rate with clinical and angiographic outcomes that are unmatched by other conduits. Given the fact that patients often require more than one graft during a coronary revascularization procedure, the prospect of bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting has been very appealing to some surgeons. BIMA grafting has been extensively studied via multiple retrospective and prospective cohort studies and findings have indicated that BIMA grafting can have an increased survival benefit when compared to LIMA grafting alone. As a result, this technique has accrued increasing popularity over the course of the last decade. Yet, questions still remain on whether BIMA grafting is the optimal treatment modality for patients in terms of long-term prognosis. There is limited data at the present time from randomized controlled trials and only 4–12% of CABGs performed today utilize BIMA grafting. Concerns regarding perioperative complications, which patient subsets are at higher risks for complications from the technique, and the technical challenges involved in utilizing and teaching the technique have limited its widespread use.