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

Expert systematic review on the choice of conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting: endorsed by the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)

PREAMBLE

The finalized document was endorsed by the EACTS Council and STS Executive Committee before being simultaneously published in the European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery (EJCTS) and The Annals of Thoracic Surgery (The Annals) and the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (JTCVS).

Practice Advisory for Preoperative and Intraoperative Pain Management of Cardiac Surgical Patients: Part 2

Pain after cardiac surgery is of moderate to severe intensity, which increases postoperative distress and health care costs, and affects functional recovery. Opioids have been central agents in treating pain after cardiac surgery for decades. The use of multimodal analgesic strategies can promote effective postoperative pain control and help mitigate opioid exposure. This Practice Advisory is part of a series developed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) Quality, Safety, and Leadership (QSL) Committee's Opioid Working Group. It is a systematic review of existing literature for various interventions related to the preoperative and intraoperative pain management of cardiac surgical patients. This Practice Advisory provides recommendations for providers caring for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This entails developing customized pain management strategies for patients, including preoperative patient evaluation, pain management, and opioid use-focused education as well as perioperative use of multimodal analgesics and regional techniques for various cardiac surgical procedures. The literature related to this field is emerging, and future studies will provide additional guidance on ways to improve clinically meaningful patient outcomes.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for the neurological complications in endoscopic versus open radial artery harvest (NEO) randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Coronary artery bypass grafting can be conducted using the radial artery as a bypass graft. However, it remains unclear which harvesting method is superior, i.e. endoscopic or open radial artery, and which site for proximal anastomosis of the radial artery has the greatest benefits?

METHODS

The NEO Trial is a single site randomised clinical trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. The first comparison assesses endoscopic versus open radial artery harvest with a primary outcome of hand function and secondary outcomes of neurological deficits through clinical exams and neurophysiological studies. The primary outcome is postoperatively hand function at three months. We anticipate a mean difference of 3 points with a standard deviation of 8 points, a power of 90%, and a type I error of 5%, resulting in a required sample size of 300 participants randomised 1:1. Secondary outcomes are neurological deficits (based on nerve conduction measurements, algometry test and von Frey hair test), clinical neurological examination of cutaneous sensibility, and registration of complications in the donor arm (haematoma formation, wound dehiscence, and/or infection). The second comparison assesses two different proximal anastomotic sites, i.e. aorto-radial anastomosis versus mammario-radial anastomosis. The primary outcome is a composite of cerebrovascular events and the secondary outcome is graft patency evaluation by multi-slice computer tomography-scan. These outcomes will be assessed at 1 year postoperatively, and the results of this comparison will be exploratory only. Both comparisons will be analysed using intention-to-treat and intervention groups will be compared using linear regression, logistic regression, or Mann-Whitney U test depending on data type. Two independent statisticians will follow the present plan and conduct the analyses which will hereafter be fused into a final analysis based on consensus.

CONCLUSION

This detailed analysis plan will increase the validity of the NEO trial results by predefining the statistical analysis in detail.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01848886 . Registered 25 February 2013. Danish Ethics committee number: H-3-2012-116. Danish Data Protection Agency: 2007-58-0015/jr. n:30-0838.

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.

Prospective randomized trial of endoscopic vs open radial artery harvest for CABG: Clinical outcome, patient satisfaction, and midterm RA graft patency

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic radial artery (RA) harvest (ERAH) is an alternative to open RA harvest (ORAH) technique. Our aim was to ascertain clinical outcomes, patent satisfaction, and 1-year angiographic patency rates after ERAH and ORAH.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 50 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting were prospectively randomized to two groups. In the ERAH group (25 patients) the RA was harvested endoscopically and in the ORAH group (25 patients) openly.

RESULTS

There were not differences between the groups in preoperative characteristics. Length of skin incision was shorter in ERAH (P < .001) but there were not differences in the length of RA, harvest time, blood flow, and pulsatility index after ERAH and ORAH. Wound healing was uniformly smooth in ERAH and there were two hematomas and one infection in ORAH. Postoperatively, major neuralgias were present in five patients in ORAH and none in ERAH and minor neuralgias in 11 and 3 patients (P = .02) respectively. Twenty-four patients in ERAH and four in ORAH graded their experience as excellent (P < .001). One-year angiographic RA patency was 90% without intergroup difference. Target vessel stenosis less than 90% adversely affected RA patency (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In expert center, ERAH does not appear to have negative impact on the time harvest, the length, and quality of RA conduit, the wound healing, and the occurrence of hand and forearm complications. In addition, provides excellent cosmetic result and patient satisfaction. RA graft patency is gratifying when placed to a target coronary artery vessel with stenosis greater than 90%.

Endoscopic Radial Artery Harvesting During Anesthesia Line Placement Reduces the Time and Cost of Multivessel Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Objective

Endoscopic radial artery (RA) harvesting performed concurrently with internal mammary artery (IMA) takedown and endoscopic saphenous vein (SV) harvesting creates a crowded and inefficient operating room environment. We assessed the effect of a presternotomy RA harvest strategy on surgery time and costs.

Methods

A total of 41 patients underwent elective, first-time, isolated multivessel on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting including an IMA, RA, and SV graft. The first 20 patients (Phase I) underwent endoscopic RA harvesting concurrently with IMA takedown and endoscopic SV harvesting after sternotomy, requiring two sets of endoscopic harvesting equipment per case, each used by a separate individual. The final 21 patients (Phase II) underwent endoscopic RA harvesting during anesthesia line placement, completing the procedure before sternotomy, thus requiring only one set of endoscopic harvesting equipment reused by a single individual.

Results

There were no differences in baseline patient characteristics, number of bypasses, duration of SV or RA harvest time, or duration of cardiopulmonary bypass or cross-clamp time between the two groups. Total surgery time was reduced by 32 minutes in Phase II ( P = 0.044). Relative to a total hospital direct cost of 100.00 units, total surgery costs were reduced from 29.33 units in Phase I to 25.62 units in Phase II ( P = 0.001). No anesthesia- or RA harvest-related complications occurred in either group.

Conclusions

Endoscopic RA harvesting can be safely performed during anesthesia line placement prior to sternotomy. Our simple but innovative strategy improves intraoperative workflow, reduces the time and cost of surgery, and advances the delivery of high-quality patient care.

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.