Vincent J Kroeze1, Ka Yan Lam2, Albert H M van Straten2, Saskia Houterman3, Mohamed A Soliman-Hamad2. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: kroeze.vincent@gmail.com. 2. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Education and Research, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Earlier reports concerning endoscopic vein harvesting have been controversial regarding the patency of the vein graft after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In addition, data on the quality of life are lacking. In this study, we investigated our experience with endoscopic vein harvesting with regard to these end points. METHODS: The analysis included patients undergoing isolated CABG between 2012 and 2016. Patients were divided in 2 groups stratified by the technique of saphenous vein harvesting: open vs endoscopic. Primary end points were the rate of repeat revascularization and leg wound complications. Secondary end points were the physical and mental quality of life scores of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to adjust the end point of repeat revascularization for relevant covariates. RESULTS: The open group included 2123 patients, and the endoscopic group included 883 patients. Overall mortality was not significantly different between the groups (P = .060). Revascularization-free survival was similar between the groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 1.02; P = .059). Endoscopic vein harvesting was significantly associated with a decreased hazard for the combined end point of death or repeat revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.90; P = .009). Significantly more leg wound complications were seen in the open group (24 vs 0; P = .002). Postoperative quality of life showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from the benefits on leg wound complications, endoscopic vein harvesting was comparable to open vein harvesting in the rate of repeat revascularization and quality of life.
BACKGROUND: Earlier reports concerning endoscopic vein harvesting have been controversial regarding the patency of the vein graft after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In addition, data on the quality of life are lacking. In this study, we investigated our experience with endoscopic vein harvesting with regard to these end points. METHODS: The analysis included patients undergoing isolated CABG between 2012 and 2016. Patients were divided in 2 groups stratified by the technique of saphenous vein harvesting: open vs endoscopic. Primary end points were the rate of repeat revascularization and leg wound complications. Secondary end points were the physical and mental quality of life scores of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to adjust the end point of repeat revascularization for relevant covariates. RESULTS: The open group included 2123 patients, and the endoscopic group included 883 patients. Overall mortality was not significantly different between the groups (P = .060). Revascularization-free survival was similar between the groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 1.02; P = .059). Endoscopic vein harvesting was significantly associated with a decreased hazard for the combined end point of death or repeat revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.90; P = .009). Significantly more leg wound complications were seen in the open group (24 vs 0; P = .002). Postoperative quality of life showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from the benefits on leg wound complications, endoscopic vein harvesting was comparable to open vein harvesting in the rate of repeat revascularization and quality of life.
Authors: Bhuvaneswari Krishnamoorthy; Joesph Zacharias; William R Critchley; Melissa Rochon; Iryna Stalpinskaya; Azita Rajai; Rajamiyer V Venkateswaran; Shahzad G Raja; Toufan Bahrami Journal: NIHR Open Res Date: 2021-07-08