BACKGROUND: Saphenous vein grafts (SVG) are a commonly used conduit for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and can be harvested by either an open or endoscopic technique. Our goal was to evaluate long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes of open compared to endoscopic SVG harvest for CABG. METHODS: Electronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature that compared open and endoscopic SVG harvesting for CABG with at least one year of follow-up. The primary outcome was graft patency. Secondary outcomes included perioperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Of 3,255 articles identified, a total of 11 studies were included for analysis. Of 18,131 patients, 10,873 (60%) patients underwent open SVG harvest and 7,258 (40%) patients underwent endoscopic SVG harvest. The mean age of patients was 65 years and 87% were male. The overall mean follow-up period was 2.6 years. During follow-up, patients who underwent open SVG harvest had superior graft patency per graft [open 82.3% vs. endoscopic 75.1%; OR: 0.61 (95% CI, 0.43-0.87); P=0.01], but higher rates of overall wound complications in the immediate post-operative period [open 3.3% vs. endoscopic 1.1%; OR: 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.06); P<0.001]. Patients who underwent open SVG harvest had higher postoperative 30-day mortality [open 3.4% vs. endoscopic 2.1%; OR: 0.59 (95% CI, 0.37-0.94); P=0.03], but no significant difference in overall mortality [open 4.9% vs. endoscopic 4.9%; OR: 0.34 (95% CI, 0.50-1.27); P=0.34]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent an open SVG harvest technique had improved graft patency and comparable overall mortality to endoscopic SVG harvest at average follow-up time of 2.6 years. Patients with open SVG harvest had higher rates of early wound complications and postoperative 30-day mortality, however, there was no difference in overall mortality.
BACKGROUND: Saphenous vein grafts (SVG) are a commonly used conduit for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and can be harvested by either an open or endoscopic technique. Our goal was to evaluate long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes of open compared to endoscopic SVG harvest for CABG. METHODS: Electronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature that compared open and endoscopic SVG harvesting for CABG with at least one year of follow-up. The primary outcome was graft patency. Secondary outcomes included perioperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Of 3,255 articles identified, a total of 11 studies were included for analysis. Of 18,131 patients, 10,873 (60%) patients underwent open SVG harvest and 7,258 (40%) patients underwent endoscopic SVG harvest. The mean age of patients was 65 years and 87% were male. The overall mean follow-up period was 2.6 years. During follow-up, patients who underwent open SVG harvest had superior graft patency per graft [open 82.3% vs. endoscopic 75.1%; OR: 0.61 (95% CI, 0.43-0.87); P=0.01], but higher rates of overall wound complications in the immediate post-operative period [open 3.3% vs. endoscopic 1.1%; OR: 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.06); P<0.001]. Patients who underwent open SVG harvest had higher postoperative 30-day mortality [open 3.4% vs. endoscopic 2.1%; OR: 0.59 (95% CI, 0.37-0.94); P=0.03], but no significant difference in overall mortality [open 4.9% vs. endoscopic 4.9%; OR: 0.34 (95% CI, 0.50-1.27); P=0.34]. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent an open SVG harvest technique had improved graft patency and comparable overall mortality to endoscopic SVG harvest at average follow-up time of 2.6 years. Patients with open SVG harvest had higher rates of early wound complications and postoperative 30-day mortality, however, there was no difference in overall mortality.
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: Lawrence J Dacey; John H Braxton; Robert S Kramer; Joseph D Schmoker; David C Charlesworth; Robert E Helm; Carmine Frumiento; Gerald L Sardella; Robert A Clough; Stephan R Jones; David J Malenka; Elaine M Olmstead; Cathy S Ross; Gerald T O'Connor; Donald S Likosky Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-01-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Syed Faisal Hashmi; Bhuvaneswari Krishnamoorthy; William R Critchley; Peter Walker; Paul W Bishop; Rajamiyer V Venkateswaran; James E Fildes; Nizar Yonan Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2014-10-29
Authors: John D Puskas; Michael E Halkos; Husam Balkhy; Michael Caskey; Mark Connolly; John Crouch; Anno Diegeler; Jan Gummert; Wolfgang Harringer; Valavanur Subramanian; Francis Sutter; Klaus Matschke Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Emile N Brown; Zachary N Kon; Richard Tran; Nicholas S Burris; Junyen Gu; Patrick Laird; Philip S Brazio; Seeta Kallam; Kimberly Schwartz; Lisa Bechtel; Ashish Joshi; Shaosong Zhang; Robert S Poston Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2007-09-29 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Judson B Williams; Eric D Peterson; J Matthew Brennan; Art Sedrakyan; Dale Tavris; John H Alexander; Renato D Lopes; Rachel S Dokholyan; Yue Zhao; Sean M O'Brien; Robert E Michler; Vinod H Thourani; Fred H Edwards; Hesha Duggirala; Thomas Gross; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Peter K Smith Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mario Gaudino; Stephen E Fremes; Marc Ruel; Antonino Di Franco; Michele Di Mauro; Joanna Chikwe; Giacomo Frati; Leonard N Girardi; David P Taggart; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 5.501