Limb performance and patient satisfaction after radial artery harvesting: endoscopic versus open techniques

Radial artery harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery-Endoscopic or open method? A meta-analysis

We analyzed the clinical outcomes of open radial artery harvesting (OAH) and endoscopic radial artery harvesting (EAH) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We designed this meta-analysis conducted using Pubmed, Medline, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. Articles with comparisons of OAH and EAH undergoing CABG were included. Primary outcomes included the wound infection rate, the wound complication rate, neurological complications of the forearm, in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, and the patency rate. The results of our study included six randomized controlled trials (RCTs), two non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) with matching, and 10 NRCTs. In total, 2919 patients were included in 18 studies, while 1187 (40.7%) and 1732 (59.3%) patients received EAH and OAH, respectively. EAH was associated with a lower incidence of wound infection (RR = 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.14 to 0.60, p = 0.03), and neurological complications over the harvesting site (RR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.62, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality, long-term survival (over one year), and the graft patency rate. According to our analysis, endoscopic radial artery harvesting can improve the outcome of the harvesting site, without affecting the mortality, long-term survival, and graft patency.

Persistent postoperative pain after cardiac surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis regarding incidence and pain intensity

Persistent postoperative pain (PPP) has been described as a complication of cardiac surgery (CS). We aimed to study PPP after CS (PPPCS) by conducting a systematic review of the literature regarding its incidence, intensity, location, and the presence of neuropathic pain, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The review comprised 3 phases: a methodological assessment of 6 different databases identifying potential articles and screening for inclusion criteria by 2 independent reviewers; data extraction; and study quality assessment. Meta-analysis was used to estimate the pooled incidence rates using a random effects model. We have identified 442 potentially relevant studies through database searching. A total of 23 studies (involving 11,057 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Persistent postoperative pain affects 37% patients in the first 6 months after CS, and it remains present more than 2 years after CS in 17%. The reported incidence of PPP during the first 6 months after CS increased in recent years. Globally, approximately half of the patients with PPPCS reported moderate to severe pain. Chest is the main location of PPPCS followed by the leg; neuropathic pain is present in the majority of the patients. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to provide estimates regarding incidence and intensity of PPPCS, which elucidates its relevance. There is an urgent need for adequate treatment and follow-up in patients with PPPCS.

A Prospective Randomized Study of Endoscopic Versus Conventional Harvesting of the Radial Artery

OBJECTIVE

The aims of the study were to determine whether endoscopic harvesting of the radial artery (RA) reduces morbidity due to pain, infection, and disability with improvement in satisfaction and cosmesis compared to the conventional technique and (2) to compare the 6-month angiographic patency of the RA harvested conventionally and endoscopically.

METHODS

In a prospective randomized study, 119 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting using the RA were randomized to have RA harvested either conventionally (n = 59) or endoscopically (n = 60).

RESULTS

Radial artery harvest time (open wound time) was significantly reduced in the endoscopic group (36.5 ± 9.4 vs 57.7 ± 9.4 minutes, P < 0.001). Only one patient developed wound infection (1.6%) in the endoscopic group compared with six patients (10.2%), P = 0.061, in the conventional group. Although this was not statistically significant, clinically this was relevant in terms of reduction in postoperative morbidity. Postoperative pain in the arm incision was significantly lower in the endoscopic group at postoperative day 2 (P < 0.001) and at discharge (P < 0.001) and similar to the conventional open group at 6 weeks' follow-up (P = 0.103). Overall patient satisfaction and cosmesis were significantly better in the endoscopic group at postoperative day 2 (P < 0.001), at discharge (P < 0.001), and at 6 weeks' follow-up (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the arm disability postoperatively (P = 0.505) between the two groups. Six-month angiographic assessment of 23 patients (12 endoscopic and 11 open) revealed no difference in the patency rate (10/12 in endoscopic and 9/11 in open group).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic RA harvesting reduced the incidence of postoperative wound infection and wound pain and improved patient satisfaction and cosmesis compared with conventional harvesting technique. There was no difference in the 6-month angiographic patency of the RA harvested conventionally and endoscopically.

Endoscopic Conduit Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery

Objective

The purpose of this consensus conference was to develop and update evidence-informed consensus statements and recommendations on harvesting saphenous vein and radial artery via an open as compared with endoscopic technique by systematically reviewing and performing a meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials.

Methods

All randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled trials included in the first the International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery Consensus Conference and Statements,1,2 in 2005 up to November 30, 2015, were included in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Based on the resultant, 76 studies (23 randomized controlled trials and 53 nonrandomized controlled trials) on 281,459 patients analyzed, consensus statements, and recommendations were generated comparing the risks and benefits of endoscopic versus open conduit harvesting for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

Results

Compared with open vein harvest, it is reasonable to perform endoscopic vein harvest of saphenous vein to reduce wound-related complications, postoperative length of stay, and outpatient wound management resources and to increase patient satisfaction (class I, level A). Based on the quality of the conduit and major adverse cardiac events as well as 6-month angiographic patency, endoscopic vein harvest was noninferior to open harvest. It is reasonable to perform endoscopic radial artery harvest to reduce wound-related complication and to increase patient satisfaction (class I, level B-R and B-NR, respectively) with reduction in major adverse cardiac events and noninferior patency rate at 1 and 3 to 5 years (class III, level B-R).

Conclusions

Based on the consensus statements, the consensus panel recommends (class I, level B) that endoscopic saphenous vein and radial artery harvesting should be the standard of care for patients who require these conduits for coronary revascularization.

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.