BACKGROUND: Endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) is the standard of care for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the United States, but recent comparisons with open harvesting suggest that conduit quality and outcomes may be compromised in EVH. To test the hypothesis that problems with EVH may relate to its learning curve and conduit quality, we analyzed the quality and early function of conduits procured by technicians with varying experience in EVH. METHODS: Experienced (more than 900 cases, n=55 patients) and novice (less than 100 cases, n=30 patients) technicians performed EVH during CABG. Subsequently, optical coherence tomography (OCT) was used to examine the conduits for vascular injury, with segments identified as injured being further examined for gene expression with an array of genes related to tissue injury. Conduit diameter was measured intra- and postoperatively (day 5 and 6 months, respectively) with OCT and computed tomographic angiography. RESULTS: Endoscopic vein harvesting by novice harvesters resulted in a greater number of discrete graft injuries and greater expression of tissue-injury genes than EVH done by experienced harvesters. Regression analysis revealed an association between shear stress and early dilation of engrafted vessels (positive remodeling) (R2=0.48, p<0.01). Injured veins showed blunted positive remodeling at 5 days after harvesting and a greater degree of late lumen loss at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Under normal conditions, intraluminal shear stress leads to positive remodeling of vein grafts during the first postoperative week. Injury to conduits, a frequent sequela of the learning curve for EVH, was a predictor of early graft failure and of blunted positive remodeling and greater negative remodeling of endoscopically harvested vein grafts. Given the current annual volume of cases in which EVH is used, rigorous monitoring of the learning curve for this procedure represents an important and unrecognized issue in public health.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) is the standard of care for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the United States, but recent comparisons with open harvesting suggest that conduit quality and outcomes may be compromised in EVH. To test the hypothesis that problems with EVH may relate to its learning curve and conduit quality, we analyzed the quality and early function of conduits procured by technicians with varying experience in EVH. METHODS: Experienced (more than 900 cases, n=55 patients) and novice (less than 100 cases, n=30 patients) technicians performed EVH during CABG. Subsequently, optical coherence tomography (OCT) was used to examine the conduits for vascular injury, with segments identified as injured being further examined for gene expression with an array of genes related to tissue injury. Conduit diameter was measured intra- and postoperatively (day 5 and 6 months, respectively) with OCT and computed tomographic angiography. RESULTS: Endoscopic vein harvesting by novice harvesters resulted in a greater number of discrete graft injuries and greater expression of tissue-injury genes than EVH done by experienced harvesters. Regression analysis revealed an association between shear stress and early dilation of engrafted vessels (positive remodeling) (R2=0.48, p<0.01). Injured veins showed blunted positive remodeling at 5 days after harvesting and a greater degree of late lumen loss at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Under normal conditions, intraluminal shear stress leads to positive remodeling of vein grafts during the first postoperative week. Injury to conduits, a frequent sequela of the learning curve for EVH, was a predictor of early graft failure and of blunted positive remodeling and greater negative remodeling of endoscopically harvested vein grafts. Given the current annual volume of cases in which EVH is used, rigorous monitoring of the learning curve for this procedure represents an important and unrecognized issue in public health.
Authors: Domingos S R Souza; Michael R Dashwood; Janice C S Tsui; Derek Filbey; Lennart Bodin; Benny Johansson; Jan Borowiec Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Keith Allen; Davy Cheng; William Cohn; Mark Connolly; James Edgerton; Volkmar Falk; Janet Martin; Toshiya Ohtsuka; Richard Vitali Journal: Innovations (Phila) Date: 2005
Authors: Aletta Ann Frazier; Fauzia Qureshi; Katrina M Read; Robert C Gilkeson; Robert S Poston; Charles S White Journal: Radiographics Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: George T Lau; Lloyd J Ridley; Paul G Bannon; Louise A Wong; Joseph Trieu; David B Brieger; Harry C Lowe; Ben S Freedman; Leonard Kritharides Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-07-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Laurie Shroyer; Frederick L Grover; Brack Hattler; Joseph F Collins; Gerald O McDonald; Elizabeth Kozora; John C Lucke; Janet H Baltz; Dimitri Novitzky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-11-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S J Brener; L A Barr; J E Burchenal; S Katz; B S George; A A Jones; E D Cohen; P C Gainey; H J White; H B Cheek; J W Moses; D J Moliterno; M B Effron; E J Topol Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-08-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Daniel A Caños; Gary S Mintz; Chalak O Berzingi; Sue Apple; Jun-ichi Kotani; Augusto D Pichard; Lowell F Satler; William O Suddath; Ron Waksman; Joseph Lindsay; Neil J Weissman Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-07-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Martin Andreas; Dominik Wiedemann; Sebastian Stasek; Stephanie Kampf; Marek Ehrlich; Ernst Eigenbauer; Guenther Laufer; Alfred Kocher Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2013-06-30
Authors: Etem Caliskan; Domingos Ramos de Souza; Andreas Böning; Oliver J Liakopoulos; Yeong-Hoon Choi; John Pepper; C Michael Gibson; Louis P Perrault; Randall K Wolf; Ki-Bong Kim; Maximilian Y Emmert Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2019-08-27 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Bhuvaneswari Krishnamoorthy; William R Critchley; Rajamiyer V Venkateswaran; James Barnard; Ann Caress; James E Fildes; Nizar Yonan Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 1.637
Authors: Maciej Rachwalik; Tomasz Płonek; Wojciech Kustrzycki; Przemysław Szyber; Stanisław Pawłowski; Waldemar Goździk Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2012-11-06 Impact factor: 1.195