Mid-term outcomes for Endoscopic versus Open Vein Harvest: a case control study

Endoscopic vein harvesting

Coronary artery bypass grafting is the most common cardiac surgical procedure performed worldwide and the long saphenous vein the most common conduit for this. When performed as an open vein harvest (OVH), the incision on each leg can be up to 85cm long, making it the longest incision of any routine procedure. This confers a high degree of morbidity to the procedure. Endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) methods were popularised over two decades ago, demonstrating significant benefits over OVH in terms of leg wound complications including surgical site infections. They also appeared to hasten return to usual activities and wound healing and became popular particularly in North America. Subgroup analyses of two trials designed for other purposes created a period of uncertainty between 2009-2013 while the impact of endoscopic vein harvesting on vein graft patency and major adverse cardiac events was scrutinised. Large observational studies debunked the findings of increased mortality in the short-term, allowing practitioners and governing bodies to regain some confidence in the procedure. A well designed, adequately powered, randomised controlled trial published in 2019 also definitively demonstrated that there was no increase in death, myocardial infarction or repeat revascularisation with endoscopic vein harvest. Endoscopic vein harvest is a Class IIa indication in European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and a Class I indication in International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery (ISMICS) guidelines.

Long-term survival after endoscopic vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic vein harvest is the technique of choice in North America, where it constitutes 80% of conduit harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting. The UK has much lower rates, despite demonstrable perioperative benefits. Concerns about patency and long-term survival are often cited as reasons for poor uptake and evidence in the literature thus far has only addressed mid-term outcomes. We sought to identify the long-term survival of patients undergoing endoscopic vein harvest compared with a contemporaneous cohort of open vein harvest.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting at a single institution between 2007 and 2017. All-cause long-term mortality was compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 7,527 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (1,029 receiving endoscopic vein harvest) were studied. The groups were well matched for preoperative characteristics, except that there were more patients with triple-vessel disease and good left-ventricular function in the endoscopic vein harvest group. There was no statistically significant difference in the long-term survival (p = 0.23). At five years (median follow-up), survival was 86.1% (95% confidence interval 85.3-87.0) in the open vein harvest group compared with 85.5% (95% confidence interval 82.8-88.2) in the endoscopic vein harvest group.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Endoscopic vein harvest does not affect long-term survival in an unselected population. The contraindications for minimally invasive vein harvest in coronary artery bypass grafting are increasingly diminishing.

Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Complications after Endoscopic or Surgical Saphenous Vein Harvesting

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting (EVH) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been developed to reduce leg wound problems. This study was undertaken to evaluate postoperative complications and patient's subjective satisfaction comparing EVH and surgical vein harvesting (SVH).

METHODS

From January to December 2017, patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery (CABG, CABG + Valve repair or replacement) underwent saphenous vein graft harvesting either by EVH (n = 136) or SVH (n = 104). Clinical follow-up was scheduled for day 7 and > 45 days after surgery. Primary end points were divided into two subgroups. The first one included postoperative extent of subjective pain and satisfaction with the cosmetic results described by the patients themselves, while the second subgroup included objective postoperative complications including wound healing disturbances, hematoma, and neuropathy. Secondary end point was length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

At 7 days follow-up, EVH patients were more satisfied with the cosmetic results than those of the SVH group (p < 0.001) and expressed a significant tendency toward lower subjective pain compared with the SVH patients (p < 0.001), exhibited significantly lower cellulitis (p-0.002), neuropathy (p-0.005), and superficial wound healing disturbance (p-0.007). During further follow-up at > 45 days, patients with EVH were still more satisfied with the cosmetic results (p < 0.001) and expressed lower subjective pain (p < 0.001), while the other objective wound parameters did not show significant differences between both groups. Mean length of hospital stay of EVH patients was 0.7 days less compared with SVH patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate the noninferiority of EVH in the short term and in the early medium term.

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.

A comprehensive review on learning curve associated problems in endoscopic vein harvesting and the requirement for a standardised training programme

Endoscopic vein harvesting is becoming one of the most favourable vein harvesting techniques in multiple bypass coronary surgery, due to its short term post-operative benefits with high patient satisfaction. However, long-term graft patency has been both supported and questioned in the literature. Graft failure can be affected by harvesting methods and operator's experience. Endoscopic vein harvesting is associated with a learning curve period, during which the incidence of vein trauma is high due to unfamiliarity with the surgical technique. There is a paucity of structured learning tools for novice practitioners, meaning that training differs significantly between hospital centres. Inconsistent training methods can lead to poor surgical technique, which can have a significant impact on vein quality and stress level of the practitioner. In turn, this can lead to increased postoperative complications and longer surgical duration. The main aim of this literature review is to understand the impact of the learning curve on the vein conduit and whether there is a requirement for a standardised training programme for the novice practitioners.

Early Outcomes of Endoscopic Vein Harvesting during the Initial Learning Period

Background

The endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) method has been used in coronary artery bypass surgery in many countries. We started using the EVH method recently, and investigated the results during the early learning period.

Methods

Between March 2012 and June 2014, 75 patients (31 patients in the EVH method group, and 44 patients in the open method group) who underwent isolated first-time coronary artery bypass grafting using vein grafts were retrospectively analyzed with respect to the early outcomes including graft patency and risk factors for leg wound complications. For assessing the patency of vein graft, we performed coronary computed tomography angiography during the immediate postoperative period and 6 months later.

Results

Mean harvesting time of endoscopic method was about 15 minutes. Patency rate during the immediate operative period and the 6-month patency rate were similar between the two groups (postoperative period: EVH 100% vs. open method 94.4%, p=0.493; at 6 months: EVH 93.3% vs. open method 90.9%, p=0.791). Leg wound complications occurred more frequently in the open method group (EVH 3.2% vs. open method 13.6%, p=0.127). According to the analysis, age was an independent risk factor for leg wound complications.

Conclusion

EVH is a feasible method even for beginners and can be performed satisfactorily during their learning period.

Endoscopic vein harvesting: technique, outcomes, concerns & controversies

The choice of the graft conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has significant implications both in the short- and long-term. The patency of a coronary conduit is closely associated with an uneventful postoperative course, better long-term patient survival and superior freedom from re-intervention. The internal mammary artery is regarded as the primary conduit for CABG patients, given its association with long-term patency and survival. However, long saphenous vein (LSV) continues to be utilized universally as patients presenting for CABG often have multiple coronary territories requiring revascularization. Traditionally, the LSV has been harvested by creating incisions from the ankle up to the groin termed open vein harvesting (OVH). However, such harvesting methods are associated with incisional pain and leg wound infections. In addition, patients find such large incisions to be cosmetically unappealing. These concerns regarding wound morbidity and patient satisfaction led to the emergence of endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH). Published experience comparing OVH with EVH suggests decreased wound related complications, improved patient satisfaction, shorter hospital stay, and reduced postoperative pain at the harvest site following EVH. Despite these reported advantages concerns regarding risk of injury at the time of harvest with its potential detrimental effect on vein graft patency and clinical outcomes have prevented universal adoption of EVH. This review article provides a detailed insight into the technical aspects, outcomes, concerns, and controversies associated with EVH.

WITHDRAWN: Endoscopic Radial Artery Harvesting: Long-Term Results and Graft Patency Rate

This article has been withdrawn: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy. This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.

Closed suction drainage improves clinical outcome in patients undergoing endoscopic vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) is a widely accepted technique for coronary artery bypass grafting, with well-reported benefits. However, EVH is associated with severe hematoma formation at incision sites, resulting in postoperative pain. We hypothesized that the use of a leg wound drain at the incision site may reduce these comorbidities.

METHODS

One hundred consecutive patients were prospectively randomly allocated into two groups of 50: group 1 with leg wound drains, and group 2 without drains. Group 1 patients underwent EVH followed by closure with a size 10 high vacuum leg wound drain (20 kPa), whereas group 2 underwent EVH followed by closure without a leg wound drain. Patients were assessed for postoperative pain, wound infection, and satisfaction using validated scoring systems immediately after surgery.

RESULTS

Pain at rest (p < 0.001) and with movement (p < 0.001), incidence of hematoma (p < 0.001), and patient satisfaction (p < 0.001) were significantly improved in the drain group at days 1 to 7 and remained significant at week 6 after surgery. Interestingly, the use of antibiotics (6% versus 24%, p = 0.012) and the number of general practitioner visits (6% versus 26%, p = 0.012) were lower in the drain group compared with the no-drain group. However, there were no differences in the length of hospital stay between the two groups after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that the use of a high vacuum leg drain after EVH for long saphenous vein is of clear therapeutic benefit in the early postoperative period. We also report that this technique may reduce antibiotic administration and general practitioner visits after patient discharge.

Is endoscopic harvesting bad for saphenous vein graft patency in coronary surgery?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) has quickly been adopted as the standard-of-care for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Despite clear advantages in terms of wound morbidity, healing, pain, and patient satisfaction, data from recent large clinical trials have called the safety of this technique into question.

RECENT FINDINGS

Post-hoc analyses of a variety of prospective trials have suggested EVH is associated with decreased graft patency, higher rates of cardiovascular complications (e.g. myocardial infarction, need for repeat revascularization) and mortality. Imaging studies of veins procured by EVH have revealed retained clot and vascular injury, particularly during the 'learning curve' of the technician. These findings may alter the quality of the conduit and, therefore, the outcome of the bypass graft. Elucidating the mechanisms that underlie any differences in results produced by the open and endoscopic procedures would help better inform clinical practice and the development of targeted strategies to improve EVH.

SUMMARY

Clear clinical advantages over traditional open vein harvest have allowed EVH to rapidly become the standard-of-care for harvesting of one or more vein grafts during CABG. The quality of these conduits, suggested to be equivalent by early studies, has come into question as groups with varying levels of experience have adopted the endoscopic technique. Elucidating the principles of 'best practice' for vein harvest will likely help shorten the learning curve and improve the safety of EVH.

Endoscopic vein harvesting for coronary bypass grafting: a blessing or a trojan horse?

Conventional open harvest of the great saphenous vein (GSV) during CABG results in approximately 7% donor-site complications. Using endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) the full GSV length can be harvested through a 3 cm incision. This nonsystematic review discusses several key issues concerning EVH, based on an extensive Pubmed search. Found studies show that EVH results in reduced number of wound complications, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative mobilisation, reduced length of hospital stay, and is more cost-effective. Initial studies did not find significant differences in graft histology, patency, or clinical outcome. However, in 2009 convincing evidence of inferior histological graft properties became available. Furthermore, an observational study showed that EVH resulted in significantly more graft stenosis, was associated with higher mortality, more myocard infarction, and more reinterventions. Most recent publications could not confirm these findings, however larger randomised controlled trials focusing on graft quality are being awaited.