Key result
No-touch saphenous vein graft harvesting was associated with a significantly lower risk of first clinically-driven angiography (HR 0.76) compared to conventional harvesting, though no differences were observed for mortality or reintervention.
Why the study?
Poor long-term patency of saphenous vein grafts after CABG limits clinical outcomes, and the potential benefits of the no-touch harvesting technique on long-term results remain to be clarified.
Does the "no-touch" saphenous vein graft harvesting technique improve long-term clinical outcomes compared to the conventional technique in patients undergoing CABG?
Cohort (n=2,698)
Yes
Does the "no-touch" saphenous vein graft harvesting technique improve long-term clinical outcomes compared to the conventional technique in patients undergoing CABG?
Hazard Ratio: 0.76 (95% CI 0.63–0.93)
Absolute Event Rate: 14% vs 16.7%
p-value: p=0.007
The "no-touch" saphenous vein graft harvesting technique for CABG reduces the long-term need for repeat angiography but does not significantly impact mortality or reintervention rates compared to conventional harvesting.
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using saphenous vein grafts (SVG) is vitiated by poor long-term patency of the vein grafts. Pedicled SVG harvested with the "no-touch" (NT) technique have demonstrated improved patency and could confer better outcomes. We aim to compare long-term results after CABG where NT or conventional technique was used for vein graft harvesting in a hypothesis-generating registry-based study. METHODS: Two propensity score matched cohorts (1349 patients) undergoing CABG with veins harvested with NT (NTT) or conventional (CT) technique in Sweden over the period 2005-2015 were used to compare long-term outcomes. Mortality, postoperative incidence of coronary angiography and need for reintervention was recorded and multivariable hazard ratios adjusted for risk factors were calculated. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time (SD) was 6.8 (3.3) years for NTT and 6.6 (3.2) years for CT. The adjusted hazard ratios for death, first angiography and need for reintervention for NTT patients were (95% CI) 0.97 (0.80-1.19), 0.76 (0.63-0.93), 0.91 (0.78-1.05), and 0.91 (0.71-1.17), respectively. Failed grafts were found in 43.2% of NTT patients and 53.6% of CT patients at angiography. CONCLUSIONS: In this study NT grafting was associated with a lower risk for repeat angiography, however no difference could be observed for mortality and need for reintervention. The earlier reported improvements in patency of NT veins could possibly be reflected in an improved clinical outcome during the first 10 years after surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Janiec et al. (2018) conducted a cohort in Coronary artery disease requiring CABG (n=2,698). No-touch (NT) technique for saphenous vein graft harvesting vs. Conventional technique for vein graft harvesting was evaluated on First clinically-driven angiography (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.93, p=0.007). No-touch saphenous vein graft harvesting was associated with a significantly lower risk of first clinically-driven angiography (HR 0.76) compared to conventional harvesting, though no differences were observed for mortality or reintervention.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: