Key result
No-touch SVG harvesting fails to improve early graft patency versus conventional techniques.
Why the study?
Does the no-touch great saphenous vein graft harvesting technique improve graft patency at discharge compared to conventional harvesting in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting?
Cohort (n=183)
No
Does the no-touch great saphenous vein graft harvesting technique improve graft patency at discharge compared to conventional harvesting in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting?
Absolute Event Rate: 93% vs 93%
p-value: p=0.64
The no-touch great saphenous vein harvesting technique did not show significant differences in perioperative outcomes or graft patency at discharge compared to conventional harvesting in this retrospective cohort.
No-touch harvesting was not associated with better early graft patency; leaves open potential long-term benefits in CABG.
Background We focused on coronary artery bypass grafting using the great saphenous vein and compared the no-touch great saphenous vein and conventional great saphenous vein. Methods Coronary artery bypass grafting using the great saphenous vein was performed at our hospital over a 15-year period from 2007/04 to 2022/08. The primary endpoint was the patency of the great saphenous vein at discharge, and secondary endpoints were delayed healing of the great saphenous vein harvest wound, delayed healing of the mid-thoracic wound, and factors related to coronary artery bypass surgery. Results There were 183 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery using the great saphenous vein during the study period. There were 131 male patients (72%) and 52 female patients (28%) with a mean age of 69 years (38-94 years). The method of harvesting the great saphenous vein was a no-touch great saphenous vein graft (NT-SVG) in 29 cases (16%) and conventional SVG in 154 cases (84%). Patients were divided into two groups: the NT-SVG group and the standard-collection saphenous vein graft (SVG) group. We compared graft patency at discharge, healing failure of the lower leg wound, healing failure of the mid-thoracic wound, and flow by transit-time flow measurement (TTFM). Conclusion There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the NT-SVG and conventional SVG groups in this study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nakajima et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease requiring coronary artery bypass grafting (n=183). No-touch great saphenous vein graft (NT-SVG) harvesting technique vs. Conventional saphenous vein graft (SVG) harvesting technique was evaluated on Patency of the great saphenous vein at discharge (p=0.64). The no-touch great saphenous vein harvesting technique showed no significant difference in early postoperative graft patency at discharge compared to the conventional technique (93% vs 93%, p=0.64).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: