Key result
No Touch SVG harvesting fails to reduce 1-year graft occlusion or CV death versus conventional harvesting.
Why the study?
Single-centre studies supported the no-touch saphenous vein graft harvesting technique, but whether it improves graft patency 1 year after CABG compared with conventional harvesting required broader evaluation.
Does No Touch (NT) saphenous vein graft harvesting reduce SVG occlusion or cardiovascular death in adults undergoing isolated CABG compared to conventional harvesting?
RCT (n=250)
Single-blind (outcome assessors)
1:1 ratio, stratified by site using a factorial design
Yes
Does No Touch (NT) saphenous vein graft harvesting reduce SVG occlusion or cardiovascular death in adults undergoing isolated CABG compared to conventional harvesting?
Odds Ratio: 0.49 (95% CI 0.19–1.28)
Absolute Event Rate: 5.5% vs 10.6%
p-value: p=0.15
No Touch SVG harvesting did not significantly improve 1-year graft patency compared to conventional harvesting in this RCT and increased early harvest site infections, though an updated meta-analysis suggests a potential patency benefit.
Does not support No Touch over conventional harvesting for 1-year outcomes; leaves open longer-term or subgroup benefits.
BACKGROUND: Single centre studies support No Touch (NT) saphenous vein graft (SVG) harvesting technique. The primary objective of the SUPERIOR SVG study was to determine whether NT versus conventional (CON) SVG harvesting was associated with improved SVG patency 1 year after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG). METHODS: Adults undergoing isolated CABG with at least 1 SVG were eligible. CT angiography was performed 1-year post CABG. Leg adverse events were assessed with a questionnaire. A systematic review was performed for published NT graft patency studies and results aggregated including the SUPERIOR study results. RESULTS: Two hundred and-fifty patients were randomized across 12-centres (NT 127 versus CON 123 patients). The primary outcome (study SVG occlusion or cardiovascular (CV) death) was not significantly different in NT versus CON (NT: 7/127 (5.5%), CON 13/123 (10.6%), p = 0.15). Similarly, the proportion of study SVGs with significant stenosis or total occlusion was not significantly different between groups (NT: 8/102 (7.8%), CON: 16/107 (15.0%), p = 0.11). Vein harvest site infection was more common in the NT patients 1 month postoperatively (23.3% vs 9.5%, p < 0.01). Including this study's results, in a meta-analysis, NT was associated with a significant reduction in SVG occlusion, Odds Ratio 0.49, 95% Confidence Interval 0.29-0.82, p = 0.007 in 3 randomized and 1 observational study at 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The NT technique was not associated with improved patency of SVGs at 1-year following CABG while early vein harvest infection was increased. The aggregated data is supportive of an important reduction of SVG occlusion at 1 year with NT harvesting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01047449 .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deb et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease requiring coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n=250). No Touch (NT) saphenous vein graft harvesting technique vs. Conventional (CON) saphenous vein graft harvesting technique was evaluated on Proportion of study SVGs completely (100%) occluded on 64-slice CCTA at 1-year following CABG or death due to cardiovascular or unknown causes (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.19-1.28, p=0.15). The No Touch saphenous vein harvesting technique did not significantly reduce the composite of study graft occlusion or cardiovascular death at 1 year compared to conventional harvesting (5.5% vs 10.6%, OR 0.49, p=0.15).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: