No-touch versus conventional vein harvesting techniques at 12 months after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: multicenter randomized, controlled trial

M Tian, X Wang, H Sun, W Feng, Y Song, F Lu… - Circulation, 2021 - Am Heart Assoc
M Tian, X Wang, H Sun, W Feng, Y Song, F Lu, L Wang, Y Wang, B Xu, H Wang, S Liu, Z Liu…
Circulation, 2021Am Heart Assoc
Background: Vein graft occlusion is deemed a major challenge in coronary artery bypass
grafting. Previous studies implied that the no-touch technique for vein graft harvesting could
reduce occlusion rate compared with the conventional approach; however, evidence on the
clinical benefit and generalizability of the no-touch technique is scare. Methods: From April
2017 to June 2019, we randomly assigned 2655 patients undergoing coronary artery
bypass grafting at 7 hospitals in a 1: 1 ratio to receive no-touch technique or conventional …
Background
Vein graft occlusion is deemed a major challenge in coronary artery bypass grafting. Previous studies implied that the no-touch technique for vein graft harvesting could reduce occlusion rate compared with the conventional approach; however, evidence on the clinical benefit and generalizability of the no-touch technique is scare.
Methods
From April 2017 to June 2019, we randomly assigned 2655 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting at 7 hospitals in a 1:1 ratio to receive no-touch technique or conventional approach for vein harvesting. The primary outcome was vein graft occlusion on computed tomography angiography at 3 months and the secondary outcomes included 12-month vein graft occlusion, recurrence of angina, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. The generalized estimate equation model was used to account for the cluster effect of grafts from the same patient.
Results
During the follow-up, 2533 (96.0%) participants received computed tomography angiography at 3 months after coronary artery bypass grafting and 2434 (92.2%) received it at 12 months. The no-touch group had significantly lower rates of vein graft occlusion than the conventional group both at 3 months (2.8% versus 4.8%; odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41–0.80]; P<0.001) and 12 months (3.7% versus 6.5%; odds ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.41–0.76]; P<0.001). Recurrence of angina was also less common in the no-touch group at 12 months (2.3% versus 4.1%; odds ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.35–0.85]; P<0.01). Rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were of no significant difference between the 2 groups. The no-touch technique was associated with higher rates of leg wound surgical interventions at 3-month follow-up (10.3% versus 4.3%; odds ratio, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.85–3.52]; P<0.001).
Conclusions
Compared with the conventional vein harvesting approach in coronary artery bypass grafting, the no-touch technique significantly reduced the risk of vein graft occlusion and improved patient prognosis.
Registration
URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03126409.
Am Heart Assoc
以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果