Association between endoscopic vs open vein-graft harvesting and mortality, wound complications, and cardiovascular events in patients undergoing CABG surgery

Endoscopic Versus “No-Touch” Saphenous Vein Harvesting for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

The advantage in terms of wound infection, wound healing, and scarring has resulted in the recent adoption of endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) as a standard of care for coronary artery bypass grafting in some centers. However, concerns regarding the quality of these grafts have been raised after recent evidence of decreased graft patency, increased reoperation rate, and myocardial infarct, problems that are associated with vascular trauma caused when using this technique. Simultaneously, an atraumatic, “no-touch” technique for harvesting the saphenous vein was developed producing grafts with improved patency comparable to the internal thoracic artery. However, wound complications remain a problem using this technique. This review outlines the need to consider the poor graft quality that may result from EVH and raises the question what is likely to be the “best practice principle” in saphenous vein harvesting?

Endoscopic harvesting device type and outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate angiographic and clinical outcomes associated with open and closed dissection tunnel endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) devices.

BACKGROUND

A previous PREVENT-IV (PRoject of Ex-vivo Vein graft ENgineering via Transfection IV) analysis reported that EVH for coronary artery bypass graft surgery was associated with worse outcomes than with traditional vein harvesting; however, outcomes by EVH device type were not available.

METHODS

Using data from the PREVENT-IV trial, we compared 1549 patients from 75 surgical sites who underwent EVH with open (n = 390) or closed (n = 1159) harvest tunnel devices. Outcomes included the incidence of vein graft failure at 12 to 18 months and a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization through 5 years.

RESULTS

Among patients undergoing open and closed tunnel EVH, no difference in the per-patient incidence of vein graft failure (43.8% vs 47.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.55; P = 0.724) or per-graft incidence of vein graft failure (25.5% vs 25.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.55; P = 0.847) was observed. At 5 years, no difference was observed in the primary composite clinical outcome between patients who underwent open and closed system EVH (21.5% vs 23.9%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.10; P = 0.221).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in angiographic or clinical outcomes were observed among patients who underwent open versus closed tunnel endoscopic harvesting for coronary bypass surgery. These findings suggest that the risks associated with EVH that were reported in a previous PREVENT-IV analysis are not related to a specific EVH device.

Vein harvesting technique for infrainguinal arterial bypass with great saphenous vein and its association with surgical site infection and graft patency

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate the association of vein harvesting technique (VHT) with surgical site infection (SSI) and graft patency after infrainguinal arterial bypass.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative database was used to review VHT of all patients undergoing single-segment great saphenous vein graft infrainguinal arterial bypass from 2003 to 2013. Patients were divided into three groups according to the VHT used (continuous incision, skip incision, and endoscopic). Multinomial logistic regression was performed to estimate propensity scores for each treatment group. Propensity score adjustment was included in multivariable analysis of the primary outcomes: SSI and graft primary patency.

RESULTS

From 2003 to 2013, 5066 patients underwent single-segment great saphenous vein graft infrainguinal bypass. The VHT was continuous incision in 48.6%, skip incision in 39.7%, and endoscopic in 12.7%. SSI rates did not differ significantly among the groups (continuous, 4.7%; skip, 4.0%; endoscopic, 3.4%; P = .278). On multivariable analysis, there was no difference in discharge primary patency between the three groups. At 1 year, primary patency rates were 69.5% for continuous, 73.0% for skip, and 58.6% for endoscopic (P < .001). After multivariable analysis, endoscopic vein harvest was independently associated with higher 1-year primary patency loss compared with both continuous (hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.74; P = .020) and skip (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.18-2.00; P = .002). There was no significant difference in 1-year primary patency loss between continuous and skip techniques (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.05; P = .170).

CONCLUSIONS

No association between the choice of VHT and the development of SSI after infrainguinal arterial bypass was identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative population. Endoscopic VHT was associated with significantly reduced 1-year primary patency rate compared with both continuous and skip techniques.

Saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass surgery: insights from PREVENT IV

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting success is limited by vein graft failure (VGF). Understanding the factors associated with VGF may improve patient outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined 1828 participants in the Project of Ex Vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV (PREVENT IV) trial undergoing protocol-mandated follow-up angiography 12 to 18 months post-coronary artery bypass grafting or earlier clinically driven angiography. Outcomes included patient- and graft-level angiographic VGF (≥75% stenosis or occlusion). Variables were selected by using Fast False Selection Rate methodology. We examined relationships between variables and VGF in patient- and graft-level models by using logistic regression without and with generalized estimating equations. At 12 to 18 months post-coronary artery bypass grafting, 782 of 1828 (42.8%) patients had VGF, and 1096 of 4343 (25.2%) vein grafts had failed. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between patients with and without VGF, although VGF patients had longer surgical times, worse target artery quality, longer graft length, and they more frequently underwent endoscopic vein harvesting. After multivariable adjustment, longer surgical duration (odds ratio per 10-minute increase, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.07), endoscopic vein harvesting (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.71), poor target artery quality (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.84), and postoperative use of clopidogrel or ticlopidine (odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.69) were associated with patient-level VGF. The predicted likelihood of VGF in the graft-level model ranged from 12.1% to 63.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

VGF is common and associated with patient and surgical factors. These findings may help identify patients with risk factors for VGF and inform the development of interventions to reduce VGF.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00042081.

Endoscopic versus open radial artery harvest and mammario-radial versus aorto-radial grafting in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: protocol for the 2 × 2 factorial designed randomised NEO trial

Background

Coronary artery bypass grafting using the radial artery has, since the 1990s, gone through a revival. Observational studies have indicated better long-term patency when using radial arteries. Therefore, radial artery might be preferred especially in younger patients where long time patency is important. During the last 10 years different endoscopic techniques to harvest the radial artery have evolved. Endoscopic radial artery harvest only requires a small incision near the wrist in contrast to open harvest, which requires an incision from the elbow to the wrist. However, it is unknown whether the endoscopic technique results in fewer complications or a graft patency comparable to open harvest. When the radial artery has been harvested, there are two ways to use the radial artery as a graft. One way is sewing it onto the aorta and another is sewing it onto the mammary artery. It is unknown which technique is the superior revascularisation technique.

Methods/Design

The NEO Trial is a randomised clinical trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. We plan to randomise 300 participants into four intervention groups: (1) mammario-radial endoscopic group; (2) aorto-radial endoscopic group; (3) mammario-radial open surgery group; and (4) aorto-radial open surgery group.

The hand function will be assessed by a questionnaire, a clinical examination, the change in cutaneous sensibility, and the measurement of both sensory and motor nerve conduction velocity at 3 months postoperatively. All the postoperative complications will be registered, and we will evaluate muscular function, scar appearance, vascular supply to the hand, and the graft patency including the patency of the central radial artery anastomosis. A patency evaluation by multi-slice computer tomography will be done at one year postoperatively.

We expect the nerve conduction studies and the standardised neurological examinations to be able to discriminate differences in hand function comparing endoscopic to open harvest of the radial artery. The trial also aims to show if there is any patency difference between mammario-radial compared to aorto-radial revascularisation techniques but this objective is exploratory.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01848886.

Danish Ethics committee number: H-3-2012-116.

Danish Data Protection Agency: 2007-58-0015/jr.n:30–0838.

Coronary artery bypass grafting: Part 1--the evolution over the first 50 years

Surgical treatment for angina pectoris was first proposed in 1899. Decades of experimental surgery for coronary artery disease finally led to the introduction of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 1964. Now that we are approaching 50 years of CABG experience, it is appropriate to summarize the advancement of CABG into a procedure that is safe and efficient. This review provides a historical recapitulation of experimental surgery, the evolution of the surgical techniques and the utilization of CABG. Furthermore, data on contemporary clinical outcomes are discussed.

Coronary artery bypass grafting: Part 2--optimizing outcomes and future prospects

Since first introduced in the mid-1960s, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has become the standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease. Surprisingly, the fundamental surgical technique itself did not change much over time. Nevertheless, outcomes after CABG have dramatically improved over the first 50 years. Randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to CABG have shown converging outcomes for select patient populations, providing more evidence for wider use of PCI. It is increasingly important to focus on the optimization of the short- and long-term outcomes of CABG and to reduce the level of invasiveness of this procedure. This review provides an overview on how new techniques and widespread consideration of evolving strategies have the potential to optimize outcomes after CABG. Such developments include off-pump CABG, clampless/anaortic CABG, minimally invasive CABG with or without extending to hybrid procedures, arterial revascularization, endoscopic vein harvesting, intraprocedural epiaortic scanning, graft flow assessment, and improved secondary prevention measures. In addition, this review represents a framework for future studies by summarizing the areas that need more rigorous clinical (randomized) evaluation.

Choice of vein-harvest technique for coronary artery bypass grafting: rationale and design of the REGROUP trial

The Randomized Endo-vein Graft Prospective (REGROUP) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01850082) is a randomized, intent-to-treat, 2-arm, parallel-design, multicenter study funded by the Cooperative Studies Program (CSP No. 588) of the US Department of Veterans Affairs. Cardiac surgeons at 16 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers with technical expertise in performing both endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) and open vein harvesting (OVH) were recruited as the REGROUP surgeon participants. Subjects requiring elective or urgent coronary artery bypass grafting using cardiopulmonary bypass with use of ≥1 saphenous vein graft will be screened for enrollment using pre-established inclusion/exclusion criteria. Enrolled subjects (planned N = 1150) will be randomized to 1 of the 2 arms (EVH or OVH) after an experienced vein harvester has been assigned. The primary outcomes measure is the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization. Subject assessments will be performed at multiple times, including at baseline, intraoperatively, postoperatively, and at discharge (or 30 days after surgery, if still hospitalized). Assessment of leg-wound complications will be completed at 6 weeks after surgery. Telephone follow-ups will occur at 3-month intervals after surgery until the participating sites are decommissioned after the trial's completion (approximately 4.5 years after the full study startup). To assess long-term outcomes, centralized follow-up of MACE for 2 additional years will be centrally performed using VA and non-VA clinical and administrative databases. The primary MACE outcome will be compared between the 2 arms, EVH and OVH, at the end of the trial duration.

Triclosan-coated sutures reduce surgical site infection after open vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting patients: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) after open vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients ranges in different studies between 2 and 20%. Triclosan is an antibacterial substance that reduces the growth of bacteria by inhibiting fatty acid synthesis. We hypothesized that wound closure with triclosan-coated sutures would reduce SSI after open vein harvesting.

METHODS

An investigator-initiated prospective randomized double-blind single-centre study was performed with 374 patients, randomized to subcutaneous and intracutaneous leg-wound closure with either triclosan-coated sutures (Vicryl Plus and Monocryl Plus, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA) (n = 184) or identical sutures without triclosan (n = 190) from the same manufacturer. All patients were followed up after 30 days (clinical visit) and 60 days (telephone interview). Primary endpoint was SSI within 60 days after surgery according to the definition of Center for Disease Control. Predefined secondary endpoints included culture-proven and antibiotic-treated SSI.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint occurred in 23 patients (12.5%) with triclosan-coated sutures and in 38 patients (20.0%) in the group without triclosan (P = 0.0497, risk ratio 0.63, (95% confidence interval 0.39-1.00). Corresponding figures for culture-proven infections were 7.6 vs 12.1%, (P = 0.15), and for antibiotic-treated infections, 10.9 vs 18.4%, (P = 0.039). Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most common pathogens in both groups. Insulin-treated diabetes and vein-harvesting time were associated with SSI after vein harvesting.

CONCLUSIONS

Leg-wound closure with triclosan-coated sutures in CABG patients reduces SSIs after open vein harvesting. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01212315).