Cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of mortality worldwide, primarily resulting from the narrowing or blockage of blood vessels. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a common surgical intervention that restores blood flow to the heart by using alternative vessels as grafts. Although saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) are frequently utilized in these procedures, they are prone to re-occlusion within 10 years, largely due to intimal hyperplasia and the development of atherosclerosis. In contrast, grafts using the mammary artery (MA) and radial artery demonstrate significantly better long-term patency and are less susceptible to occlusion. Mechanical characterization, numerical simulation, and artificial intelligence models are becoming essential to enhance surgical planning and outcomes. These digital tools provide predictive insights on intimal thickening and restenosis from medical images, thereby assisting surgeons in making well-informed decisions. This review explores the various types of grafts and the latest research in this field, focusing on graft materials, their mechanical properties, computational techniques, artificial intelligence models related to bypass surgery, and the resulting clinical implications. By highlighting the limitations of current methodologies, this review underscores the critical need for the research community to develop more advanced tools to optimize grafting outcomes.
JingLShu-xuDYong-xinR.A review: pathological and molecular biological study on atherosclerosis. Clin Chim Acta2022; 531: 217–222.
2.
EideAJussli-MelchersJFriedrichC, et al. Surgical myocardial revascularization with a composite T-graft from the left internal mammary artery-comparison of the great saphenous vein with the radial artery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2024; 72: 413–422.
3.
AudisioKHalbreinerMSChadowD, et al. Radial artery or saphenous vein for coronary artery bypass grafting. Trends Cardiovasc Med2022; 32: 479–484.
4.
ChlupacJFrankJSedmeraD, et al. External support of autologous internal jugular vein grafts with FRAME mesh in a porcine carotid artery model. Biomedicines2024; 12: 1335.
5.
PreidlRHMReussSNeukamFW, et al. Endothelial inflammatory and thrombogenic expression changes in microvascular anastomoses – an immunohistochemical analysis. J Craniomaxillofac Surg2021; 49: 422–429.
6.
WongKKLWuJLiuG, et al. Coronary arteries hemodynamics: effect of arterial geometry on hemodynamic parameters causing atherosclerosis. Med Biol Eng Comput2020; 58: 1831–1843.
7.
RoyMChakrabortyS.How does the stiffness of blood vessel walls and deposited plaques impact coronary artery diseases?Phys Fluids2024; 36: 081917.
8.
TerradaOCherradiBRaihaniA, et al. Atherosclerosis disease prediction using supervised machine learning techniques. In: 2020 1st International conference on innovative research in applied science, engineering and technology (IRASET), 2020, pp.1–5. IEEE.
9.
DugganJPPetersASTrachiotisGD, et al. Epidemiology of coronary artery disease. Surg Clin2022; 102: 499–516.
10.
TsaoCWAdayAWAlmarzooqZI.Heart disease and stroke statistics - 2023 update: a report from the American Heart association. Circulation2023; 147: E93–E621.
11.
LibbyP.The changing landscape of atherosclerosis. Nature2021; 592: 524–533.
12.
NaiyaTMeganathanINessN, et al. Contribution of the arterial cells to atherosclerosis and plaque formation. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol2024; 327: H804–H823.
13.
AsadaYYamashitaASatoY, et al. Pathophysiology of atherothrombosis: Mechanisms of thrombus formation on disrupted atherosclerotic plaques. Pathol Int2020; 70: 309–322.
14.
EliaEMontecuccoFPortincasaP, et al. Update on pathological platelet activation in coronary thrombosis. J Cell Physiol2019; 234: 2121–2133.
15.
LampridisSGeorgeSJ.Nonautologous grafts in coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review. Ann Thorac Surg2021; 112: 2094–2103.
BeerAJTauroTMRedondoML, et al. Use of allografts in orthopaedic surgery: safety, procurement, storage, and outcomes. Orthop J Sports Med2019; 7: 2325967119891435.
18.
KohJCheeHKKimK-H, et al. Historical review and future of cardiac xenotransplantation. Korean Circ J2023; 53: 351–366.
19.
Durán-ReyDCrisóstomoVSánchez-MargalloJA, et al. Systematic review of tissue-engineered vascular grafts. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2021; 9: 771400.
20.
SohnS-HKimT-HKimT-S, et al. Evaluation of 3D templated synthetic vascular graft compared with standard graft in a rat model: potential use as an artificial vascular graft in cardiovascular disease. Materials2021; 14: 1239.
21.
DesaiMSeifalianAMHamiltonG.Role of prosthetic conduits in coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg2011; 40: 394–398.
22.
RoinaYAuberFHocquetD, et al. EPTFE-based biomedical devices: an overview of surgical efficiency. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater2022; 110: 302–320.
23.
MatsuzakiYJohnKShojiT, et al. The evolution of tissue engineered vascular graft technologies: from preclinical trials to advancing patient care. Appl Sci2019; 9: 1274.
24.
ChangiziSSametiMBazemoreGL, et al. Epsin mimetic UPI peptide delivery strategies to improve endothelization of vascular grafts. Macromol Biosci2023; 23: 2300073.
25.
LanzaRLangerRVacantiJP, et al. Principles of tissue engineering. Cambridge: Academic press, 2020.
26.
EmechebeGAObiweluozorFOJeongIS, et al. Merging 3D printing with electrospun biodegradable small-caliber vascular grafts immobilized with VEGF. Nanomed2020; 30: 102306.
27.
KnightDKGilliesERMequanintK.Vascular grafting strategies in coronary intervention. Front Mater2014; 1: 4.
28.
SuckowBDKraissLWStoneDH, et al. Comparison of graft patency, limb salvage, and antithrombotic therapy between prosthetic and autogenous below-knee bypass for critical limb ischemia. Ann Vasc Surg2013; 27: 1134–1145.
29.
Abdul-MalakOMAbou AliANSalemKM, et al. Alternative autologous and biologic conduits have worse outcomes than prosthetic grafts for infrainguinal bypass in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia. J Vasc Surg2022; 76: 188–195.e3.
30.
RassoliAFatouraeeNShafighM.Uniaxial and biaxial mechanical properties of the human saphenous vein. Biomed Eng (Singapore)2015; 27: 1550050.
31.
RassoliAFatouraeeNGuidoinR.Structural model for viscoelastic properties of pericardial bioprosthetic valves. Artif Organs2018; 42: 630–639.
32.
RassoliAFatouraeeNGuidoinR, et al. A comparative study of different tissue materials for bioprosthetic aortic valves using experimental assays and finite element analysis. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2022; 220: 106813.
33.
VahdaniMHajitaherihaMMHasani MotlaghA, et al. A modified two-surface plasticity model for saturated and unsaturated soils. Indian Geotech J2022; 52: 865–876.
34.
ParmiggianiAPratoMPizzorniM.Effect of the fiber orientation on the tensile and flexural behavior of continuous carbon fiber composites made via fused filament fabrication. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2021; 114: 2085–2101.
35.
Oude VrielinkMATimmermansPHMvan de WeteringB, et al. Computational modeling of vascular tissue damage for the development of safe interventional devices. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2025; 163: 106818.
36.
HolzapfelGAOgdenRW.Constitutive modelling of arteries. Proc R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci2010; 466: 1551–1597.
37.
FungY.Biomechanics: mechanical properties of living tissues. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
GiudiciAvan der LaanKWFvan der BruggenMM, et al. Constituent-based quasi-linear viscoelasticity: a revised quasi-linear modelling framework to capture nonlinear viscoelasticity in arteries. Biomech Model Mechanobiol2023; 22: 1607–1623.
ZiaAWLiuRWuX.Structural design and mechanical performance of composite vascular grafts. Biodes Manuf2022; 5: 757–785.
42.
AbdollahiRVahidiBShojaeeP, et al. A comparative study between CFD and FSI hemodynamic parameters in a patientspecific giant saccular cerebral aneurysm. AUT J Model Simul2021; 53: 23–38.
43.
KrulOBagchiP.A computational approach to modeling flow-induced large deformation of thin-walled compliant vessels. J Comput Phys2024; 508: 113026.
44.
RovasGBikiaVStergiopulosN.Design and computational optimization of compliance-matching aortic grafts. Front Bioeng Biotechnol2023; 11: 1179174.
45.
ChangiziSAfrasiabianNRassoliA, et al. A comparative analysis of coronary bypass implants: experimental and fluid-structure interaction analysis. Biocybern Biomed Eng2024; 44: 393–401.
46.
OmidHAbdollahiSBonakdarS, et al. Biomimetic vascular tissue engineering by decellularized scaffold and concurrent cyclic tensile and shear stresses. J Mater Sci Mater Med2023; 34: 12.
47.
SafarME.Arterial stiffness as a risk factor for clinical hypertension. Nat Rev Cardiol2018; 15: 97–105.
48.
BoutouyriePChowienczykPHumphreyJD, et al. Arterial stiffness and cardiovascular risk in hypertension. Circ Res2021; 128: 864–886.
49.
KimH-L.Arterial stiffness and hypertension. Clin Hypertens2023; 29: 31.
50.
GaudinoMAudisioKDi FrancoA, et al. Radial artery versus saphenous vein versus right internal thoracic artery for coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg2022; 62: ezac345.
51.
MeirsonTOrionEDi MarioC, et al. Flow patterns in externally stented saphenous vein grafts and development of intimal hyperplasia. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2015; 150: 871–878.
Montini-BallarinFCalvoDCaraccioloPC, et al. Mechanical behavior of bilayered small-diameter nanofibrous structures as biomimetic vascular grafts. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater2016; 60: 220–233.
54.
MalekiSShamlooAKalantarniaF.Tubular TPU/SF nanofibers covered with chitosan-based hydrogels as small-diameter vascular grafts with enhanced mechanical properties. Sci Rep2022; 12: 6179.
55.
KazemzadehGJiroftiNKazemi MehrjerdiH, et al. A review on developments of in-vitro and in-vivo evaluation of hybrid PCL-based natural polymers nanofibers scaffolds for vascular tissue engineering. J Ind Text2022; 52: 15280837221128314.
56.
GaoJChenSTangD, et al. Mechanical properties and degradability of electrospun PCL/PLGA blended scaffolds as vascular grafts. Trans Tianjin Univ2019; 25: 152–160.
57.
ZhangFBambharoliyaTXieY, et al. A hybrid vascular graft harnessing the superior mechanical properties of synthetic fibers and the biological performance of collagen filaments. Mater Sci Eng: C2021; 118: 111418.
KokFMyoseRHoffmannKA.Effects of planar and nonplanar curved flow paths on the hemodynamics of helical conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting: a numerical study. Int J Heat Fluid Flow2020; 86: 108690.
60.
LiBLiuTLiuJ, et al. Reliability of using generic flow conditions to quantify aneurysmal haemodynamics: a comparison against simulations incorporating boundary conditions measured in vivo. Comput Methods Programs Biomed2022; 225: 107034.
61.
ChoK-CChoiJHOhJH, et al. Prediction of thin-walled areas of unruptured cerebral aneurysms through comparison of normalized hemodynamic parameters and intraoperative images. Biomed Res Int2018; 2018: 3047181.
62.
de OliveiraMGNadruzWJrMónicaFZ.Endothelial and vascular smooth muscle dysfunction in hypertension. Biochem Pharmacol2022; 205: 115263.
63.
TrianaAJVyasRShahAS, et al. Predicting length of stay of coronary artery bypass grafting patients using machine learning. J Surg Res2021; 264: 68–75.
64.
KabinejadianFChuaLPGhistaDN, et al. A novel coronary artery bypass graft design of sequential anastomoses. Ann Biomed Eng2010; 38: 3135–3150.
65.
NakamuraRHondaKKunimotoH, et al. Impact of graft velocity on saphenous vein graft atherosclerosis after coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2024; 30(1): 23–00066.
66.
TotoreanAFBernadSIHudreaIC, et al. Competitive flow and anastomosis angle influence on bypass hemodynamics in unsteady flow conditions. In: AIP conference proceedings, 2017, p.30013. AIP Publishing LLC.
67.
KoksungnoenSRattanadechoPWongchadakulP.3D numerical model of blood flow in the coronary artery bypass graft during no pulse and pulse situations: effects of an anastomotic angle and characteristics of fluid. J Mech Sci Technol2018; 32: 4545–4552.
68.
ApanJJTayoLHonraJ.Numerical investigation of the relationship between anastomosis angle and hemodynamics in ridged spiral flow bypass grafts. Appl Sci2023; 13: 4046.
69.
SeoJRamachandraABBoydJ, et al. Computational evaluation of venous graft geometries in coronary artery bypass surgery. In: Seminars in thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. Elsevier, 2022, pp.521–532.
70.
ToriiRWoodNBHadjiloizouN, et al. Fluid–structure interaction analysis of a patient-specific right coronary artery with physiological velocity and pressure waveforms. Commun Numer Methods Eng2009; 25: 565–580.
71.
FujiwaraTLiangFTsubotaKI, et al. Effects of vessel dynamics and compliance on human right coronary artery hemodynamics with / without stenosis. J Biomech Sci Eng2015; 10: 15–00015.
72.
FallahiHShiraniEZohraviE.Hemodynamic analysis of coronary artery bypass grafting with elastic walls and different stenoses. Sci Iran Trans B, Mech Eng2021; 28: 773–784.
73.
ArefinMS.Hemodynamic and structural effects on bypass graft for different levels of stenosis using fluid structure interaction: a prospective analysis. J Vasc Nurs2019; 37: 169–187.
74.
AlizadehghobadiSBiglariHNiroomand-OscuiiH, et al. Numerical study of hemodynamics in a complete coronary bypass with venous and arterial grafts and different degrees of stenosis. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng2021; 24: 883–896.
75.
TajeddiniFFiroozabadiBPakravanHA, et al. Patient-specific fluid–structure interaction simulation of the LAD-ITA bypass graft for moderate and severe stenosis: a doubt on the fractional flow reserve-based decision. Biocybern Biomed Eng2022; 42: 143–157.
76.
RadtkeLKönigMDüsterA.The influence of geometric imperfections in cardiovascular FSI simulations. Comput Math Appl2017; 74: 1675–1689.
77.
BletsosGRadtkeLDüsterA, et al. A fluid-structure interaction study of hemodynamics in arterial bypass-graft anastomoses. In: 8th European congress on computational methods in applied sciences and engineering, ECCOMAS, 2022.
78.
MohseniMShamlooASamaniSA, et al. Thickness as an important parameter in designing vascular grafts. In: 2014 21th Iranian conference on biomedical engineering (ICBME), 2014, pp.40–43. IEEE.
79.
BerryMWMohamedAYapBW.Supervised and unsupervised learning for data science. Cham: Springer, 2020.
80.
RajoubB.Supervised and unsupervised learning. In: ZgallaiW (ed.), Biomedical signal processing and artificial intelligence in healthcare. Elsevier, 2020, pp.51–89.
81.
HuangY-CLiS-JChenM, et al. Machine-learning techniques for feature selection and prediction of mortality in elderly CABG patients. Healthcare2021; 9: 547.
82.
KhalajiABehnoushAHJameieM, et al. Machine learning algorithms for predicting mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting. Front Cardiovasc Med2022; 9: 977747.
83.
BenedettoUDimagliASinhaS, et al. Machine learning improves mortality risk prediction after cardiac surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg2022; 163: 2075–2087.e9.
84.
ScalaAMarinoMRGiglioC, et al. Machine learning algorithms to predict LOS in patients undergoing heart bypass surgery: a bicentric study. In: International symposium on biomedical and computational biology. Springer, Nanchang, China, 2022, pp.375–383.
85.
AlshakhsFAlharthiHAslamN, et al. Predicting postoperative length of stay for isolated coronary artery bypass graft patients using machine learning. Int J Gen Med2020; 13: 751–762.
86.
ProfetaMPonsiglioneAMPonsiglioneC, et al. Comparison of machine learning algorithms to predict length of hospital stay in patients undergoing heart bypass surgery. In: 2021 International symposium on biomedical engineering and computational biology, Beijing, China, 2021, pp.1–5.
87.
MungerEHickeyJWDeyAK, et al. Application of machine learning in understanding atherosclerosis: emerging insights. APL Bioeng2021; 5(1): 011505.
88.
LiGWangHZhangM, et al. Prediction of 3D cardiovascular hemodynamics before and after coronary artery bypass surgery via deep learning. Commun Biol2021; 4: 99.
89.
YamanakaAKamijyoRKoenumaK, et al. Deep neural network approach to estimate biaxial stress-strain curves of sheet metals. Mater Des2020; 195: 108970.
90.
MauriziMGaoCBertoF.Predicting stress, strain and deformation fields in materials and structures with graph neural networks. Sci Rep2022; 12: 21834.
91.
KazeruniMInceA.Data-driven artificial neural network for elastic plastic stress and strain computation for notched bodies. Theor Appl Fract Mech2023; 125: 103917.
92.
LuoXTahabiFMRollinsDM, et al. Predicting future occlusion or stenosis of lower extremity bypass grafts using artificial intelligence to simultaneously analyze all flow velocities collected in current and previous ultrasound examinations. JVS Vasc Sci2024; 5: 100192.
93.
Díez-VillanuevaPJiménez-MéndezCBonanadC, et al. Risk factors and cardiovascular disease in the elderly. Rev Cardiovasc Med2022; 23: 188.
94.
VatnerSFZhangJVyzasC, et al. Vascular stiffness in aging and disease. Front Physiol2021; 12: 762437.
95.
HiedaMSarmaSHearonCmJr, et al. Increased myocardial stiffness in patients with high-risk left ventricular hypertrophy: the hallmark of stage-B heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Circulation2020; 141: 115–123.
96.
AmbrosinoPBachettiTD’AnnaSE, et al. Mechanisms and clinical implications of endothelial dysfunction in arterial hypertension. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis2022; 9: 136.
97.
BeredaG. Pathophysiology and management of dyslipidaemia. Biomed J Sci & Tech Res2022; 43: 006869.
98.
BurnettJRHooperAJHegeleRA.Remnant cholesterol and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. J Am Coll Cardiol2020; 76: 2736–2739.
99.
PoznyakAGrechkoAVPoggioP, et al. The diabetes mellitus-atherosclerosis connection: the role of lipid and glucose metabolism and chronic inflammation. Int J Mol Sci2020; 21: 1835.
100.
Gonzalez-JaramilloNWilhelmMArango-RivasAM, et al. Systematic review of physical activity trajectories and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol2022; 79: 1690–1700.
101.
ShaoCWangJTianJ, et al. Coronary artery disease: from mechanism to clinical practice. Coron Artery Dis2020; 1177: 1–36.
102.
LarssonSCBurgessSMasonAM, et al. Alcohol consumption and cardiovascular disease: a Mendelian randomization study. Circ Genom Precis Med2020; 13: e002814.
103.
LinI-HDuongTVWongT-C, et al. Dietary nutrients and cardiovascular risk factors among renal transplant recipients. Int J Environ Res Public Health2021; 18: 8448.
