ABSTRACT
The great saphenous vein (GSV) graft remains a frequently used conduit for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The optimal technique for GSV harvesting has been the subject of on-going controversy. We therefore sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available GSV harvesting techniques in CABG. A systematic search of 12 electronic databases was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any GSV harvesting technique, including conventional vein harvesting (CVH), no-touch, standard bridging technique (SBT) and endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) techniques. We investigated safety and long-term efficacy outcomes. All outcomes were analyzed using the frequentist network meta-analysis. A total of 6480 patients from 34 RCTs were included. For safety outcomes, EVH reduced 91% and 77% risk of wound infection compared to no-touch and CVH, respectively. EVH and SBT also significantly reduced the risk of sensibility disorder and postoperative pain. The techniques were not significantly different regarding long-term efficacy outcomes, including mortality, myocardial infarction and graft patency. For GSV harvesting for CABG, EVH techniques are the most favorable, but in case of using an open technique, no-touch is more recommended than CVH. More effective and safer procedures should be investigated for GSV harvesting in CABG.
Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Bypass/methods , Saphenous Vein/physiopathology , Vascular Patency/physiology , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Saphenous Vein/physiologyABSTRACT
Saphenous vein (SV) is a common graft being used in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Conventional (CON), intermediate (I), and no-touch (NT) are the most common harvesting techniques of SV for CABG. The aim of this study is to systematically review the NT versus CON and I techniques in harvesting SV for CABG. Twelve databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the CON, I, and NT techniques in harvesting SV for CABG. Twelve reports of six RCTs were included. Our meta-analysis showed that with NT technique, patency rate was significantly higher when compared to I technique up to 18-month follow-up duration. In contrast, this significant difference was not maintained in terms of minor complications of leg wounds with both techniques. The NT has significantly higher patency rate compared to I vein harvesting technique. However, more RCTs are warranted to confirm these results.
Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Bypass , Coronary Artery Disease/surgery , Saphenous Vein/transplantation , Tissue and Organ Harvesting/methods , Coronary Artery Bypass/adverse effects , Coronary Artery Bypass/mortality , Coronary Artery Disease/mortality , Coronary Artery Disease/physiopathology , Graft Occlusion, Vascular/etiology , Graft Occlusion, Vascular/physiopathology , Humans , Risk Factors , Saphenous Vein/physiopathology , Time Factors , Tissue and Organ Harvesting/adverse effects , Tissue and Organ Harvesting/mortality , Treatment Outcome , Vascular PatencyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Our study aimed to compare three different percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) approaches: culprit-only (COR) and complete (CR) revascularization - categorizing into immediate (ICR) or staged (SCR). METHODS: We searched 13 databases for randomized controlled trials. Articles were included if they compared at least two strategies. To have more studies in each analysis, an adjusted analysis was performed using person-years to incorporate follow-up durations and obtain pooled rate ratios (RR), with their corresponding 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Thirteen trials were included with a population of 2830 patients. COR significantly increased major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (adjusted RR 1.67, 95% CI: 1.27-2.19) and repeat revascularization (2.12, 1.67-2.69), which was driven by repeat PCI, without any difference in all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) compared to CR. When categorizing CR into SCR and ICR, the trend repeated with COR increased MACE (1.99, 1.53-2.6 for ICR), cardiovascular mortality (2.06, 1.07-3.96 for ICR), MI for ICR (1.72, 1.04-2.86), repeat revascularization and repeat PCI for both ICR and SCR. Non-cardiovascular mortality, stroke, nephropathy, re-hospitalization, stent thrombosis and bleeding were similar among all approaches. CONCLUSIONS: In MVD-STEMI patients, CR is better than COR in terms of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, repeat revascularization with no difference in safety outcomes. There was a trend towards to a reduction of cardiovascular mortality and MI in ICR compared to SCR when each matched with COR; even though there is no statistically significant difference between ICR and SCR when compared together.
