Specifically, he says that many cardiac surgeons are reluctant to employ bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts (as opposed to a single graft), even though there is a long-term benefit, because of perceived risk of infection and suboptimal financial incentives.
Puskas’ key message paragraph was so clear that it demands reposting here:
Why are American surgeons doing so few BITA [bilateral internal thoracic artery] grafts? Fundamentally, U.S. surgeons are responding to their practice environment, especially to a fear of deep sternal wound infection in an increasingly obese, diabetic population of patients. The surgeon pays a large and immediate political price for a deep sternal wound infection and receives relatively little credit for the extra years that BITA grafting adds to a patient’s life in the future. There is also a relative Ray Ban outlet financial disincentive to perform BITA grafting: incremental payment for the second internal thoracic artery graft is small considering the extra time required in the operating room. Moreover, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services no longer reimburse for extra care necessary for treatment of mediastinitis [internal chest inflammation/infection] after cardiac surgery, because this is now deemed a never event. Thus, surgeons, who are increasingly employed by hospitals and hospital systems, are under intense pressure to perform CABG surgery that is safe and cost-effective according to short-term metrics.
Puskas and his colleagues have published an analysis of bilateral vs single grafting at Emory, as well as a proposed metric for when single grafting should be used in the context of patients with diabetes:
Our present practice is generally to use BITA grafting in patients who are <75 years, have suitable coronary artery targets, are not morbidly obese, and whose glycosylated hemoglobin level is <7.0% to 7.5%.