Background; LITA to LAD anastomosis is generally accepted as a standard procedure. RITA may be a good alternative to LITA because of its larger size and richer flow than LITA. We underwent total arterial revascularization under the CPB using LITA and RITA as a in-situ graft between two groups, analysed our results, and reported it. Methods; From January 2006 to July 2007, we performed 89 coronary artery bypass surgery. Among them, we excluded redo CABG, Off-pump CABG, combined valve surgery cases and LITA to OM case. 74 patients were enrolled as the subjects of total arterial revascularization under the CPB. Group I is 44 patients of in-situ LITA to LAD bypass, and group II is 30 patients of in-situ RITA to LAD bypass. Between the two groups, we analysed the preop and postop variables including echoCG data. Results; Among the preop variables, there are no differences in age, sex, Bwt, Height, BSA, preop Hb, number of patients having unstable angina, previous PCI, previous MI, 3VD, HT, Hyperlipidemia, CHF, CVA, peripheral ASO, previous major op, COPD, other non-cardiac disease, elevated Cr, and preop IABP cases between the two groups. However, there are significant differences in number of patient having Lt main disease (14% vs. 50%, p=.001), DM (34% vs. 60%, p=.028), and CRF (0% vs. 13%, p=.024). Among the postop variables, there are no differences in CPB time, ACC time, Op time, IABP cases, hospital day, postop hospital day, C-tube removal day, number of anastomosis, and pre- and post-operative EF, LVEDD, and Wall Motion Index, reoperation, mortality, and late cardiac event. However, there are significant differences in transfusion amount (3.5 vs. 2.1, p=.003), number of days of ICU stay (6.5 vs. 4.2, p=.025) and all complications (23% vs. 10%, p=.038) between the two groups. Conclusion; In-situ RITA to LAD anastomosis may be an equivalently safe and feasible method for coronary arterial revascularization in ischemic heart disease patients.