Endoscopic Vein-Graft Harvesting: Balancing the Risk and Benefits.
An abstract is unavailable. This article is available as HTML full text and PDF.
Available from: Mauro Rinaldi
- "The comparison and discussion of EVH vs. CVH results often neglects to consider the impact of the use of endoscopic devices for vein harvesting which differ both for dissection technique and usage of CO2. Cheng et al.  underline that the Lopes' conclusions on the PREVENT IV trial may have been influenced by the fact that large part of the analysed EVH cases were performed with a closed CO2 system device (GUIDANT) which has a documented tendency to form clots within the vein, if heparin is not given before dissection (as it was actually the case at the times of that trial). They add other indications of device-related different outcomes: a long-term randomised controlled trial (RCT) carried out with a Ethicon (now Sorin) device showed in a 5-year follow-up no difference in MACE, while two others RCTs and a subset data of the PAS-Port proximal anastomosis system trial using Guidant (now Maquet) showed non-significant trends in worse vein-graft patency following EVH. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, arterial conduits are preferred because of more favourable long-term patency and outcome. Anyway the greater saphenous vein continues to be the most commonly used bypass conduit. Minimally invasive endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting is increasingly being investigated in order to reduce the morbidity associated with conventional open vein harvesting, includes postoperative leg wound complications, pain and patient satisfaction. However, to date the short and the long-term benefits of the endoscopic technique remain controversial. This study provides an interesting opportunity to address this gap in the literature.
Endoscopic Saphenous harvesting with an Open CO2 System trial includes two parallel vein harvesting arms in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. It is an interventional, single centre, prospective, randomized, safety/efficacy, cost/effectiveness study, in adult patients with elective planned and first isolated coronary artery disease. A simple size of 100 patients for each arm will be required to achieve 80% statistical power, with a significant level of 0.05, for detecting most of the formulated hypotheses. A six-weeks leg wound complications rate was assumed to be 20% in the conventional arm and less of 4% in the endoscopic arm. Previously quoted studies suggest a first-year vein-graft failure rate of about 20% with an annual occlusion rate of 1% to 2% in the first six years, with practically no difference between the endoscopic and conventional approaches. Similarly, the results on event-free survival rates for the two arms have barely a 2-3% gap. Assuming a 10% drop-out rate and a 5% cross-over rate, the goal is to enrol 230 patients from a single Italian cardiac surgery centre.
The goal of this prospective randomized trial is to compare and to test improvement in wound healing, quality of life, safety/efficacy, cost-effectiveness, short and long-term outcomes and vein-graft patency after endoscopic open CO2 harvesting system versus conventional vein harvesting.The expected results are of high clinical relevance and will show the safety/efficacy or non-inferiority of one treatment approach in terms of vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.
Trials 11/2011; 12:243. DOI:10.1186/1745-6215-12-243 · 1.73 Impact Factor
Available from: Annie Laurie W Shroyer
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In the Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) Trial, the efficacy of on-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting was evaluated. This ROOBY Trial planned subanalysis compared the effects on postbypass patient clinical outcomes and graft patency of endoscopic vein harvesting and open vein harvesting.
From April 2003 to April 2007, the technique used for saphenous vein graft harvesting was recorded in 1471 cases. Of these, 894 patients (341 endoscopic harvest and 553 open harvest) also underwent coronary angiography 1 year after coronary artery bypass grafting. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to compare patient outcomes in the endoscopic and open groups.
Preoperative patient characteristics were statistically similar between the endoscopic and open groups. Endoscopic vein harvest was used in 38% of the cases. There were no significant differences in both short-term and 1-year composite outcomes between the endoscopic and open groups. For patients with 1-year catheterization follow-up (n=894), the saphenous vein graft patency rate for the endoscopic group was lower than that in the open harvest group (74.5% vs 85.2%, P<.0001), and the repeat revascularization rate was significantly higher (6.7% vs 3.4%, P<.05). Multivariable regression documented no interaction effect between endoscopic approach and off-pump treatment.
In the ROOBY Trial, endoscopic vein harvest was associated with lower 1-year saphenous vein graft patency and higher 1-year revascularization rates, independent of the use of off-pump or on-pump cardiac surgical approach.
The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 02/2011; 141(2):338-44. DOI:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.10.004 · 4.17 Impact Factor
Zeitschrift für Herz- Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie 06/2011; 25(3):129-131. DOI:10.1007/s00398-011-0842-1
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.