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

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 260, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 402-408

  Van Diepen, Sean ^a   Brennan, J Matthew ^b   Hafley, Gail E ^b   Reyes, Eric M ^b   Allen, Keith B ^c   Ferguson, T Bruce ^d   Peterson, Eric D ^b   Williams, Judson B ^b   Gibson, C Michael ^e   Mack, Michael J ^f   Kouchoukos, Nicholas T ^g   Alexander, John H ^b   Lopes, Renato D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b DUKE CLINICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c SAINT LUKE S MID AMERICA HEART INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e PERFUSE Angiographic Laboratory   (United States)

^f Baylor Healthcare System   (United States)

^g MISSOURI BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Angiographic outcomes; Clinical outcomes; Coronary artery bypass grafting; Endoscopic vein harvesting; Vein graft failure

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANGIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CARDIOPULMONARY BYPASS; CARDIOVASCULAR ENDOSCOPE; CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; COMPOSITE GRAFT; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS SURGERY; CORONARY ARTERY OBSTRUCTION; CORONARY ARTERY RECANALIZATION; CREATININE CLEARANCE; DIASTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; ENDOSCOPIC SURGERY; ENDOSCOPIC VEIN HARVESTING; ENDOSCOPIC VEIN HARVESTING CLOSED TUNNEL SYSTEM; ENDOSCOPIC VEIN HARVESTING OPEN TUNNEL SYSTEM; FEMALE; GRAFT FAILURE; GRAFT OCCLUSION; HEART INFARCTION; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE EJECTION FRACTION; HEART RATE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY (TOPIC); OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAPHENOUS VEIN GRAFT; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; VEIN GRAFT; ADOLESCENT; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; DEVICES; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; ENDOSCOPY; GRAFT OCCLUSION, VASCULAR; GRAFT SURVIVAL; INCIDENCE; MIDDLE AGED; MULTICENTER STUDY; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAPHENOUS VEIN; TRANSPLANTATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; VASCULAR SURGERY; VERY ELDERLY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CORONARY ANGIOGRAPHY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; ENDOSCOPY; FEMALE; GRAFT OCCLUSION, VASCULAR; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SAPHENOUS VEIN; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; VASCULAR SURGICAL PROCEDURES;

EID: 84905575609     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000377     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Allen K, Cheng D, Cohn W, et al. Endoscopic vascular harvest in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a consensus statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) 2005. Innovations. 2005;1:51-60.
2. Cheng D, Allen K, Cohn W, et al. Endoscopic vascular harvest in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials and controlled trials. Innovations. 2005;1:61-74.
3. Markar SR, Kutty R, Edmonds L, et al. A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus traditional open vein harvest technique for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;10:266-270.
4. Kiaii B, Moon BC, Massel D, et al. A prospective randomized trial of endoscopic versus conventional harvesting of the saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;123:204-212.
5. Yun KL, Wu Y, Aharonian V, et al. Randomized trial of endoscopic versus open vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: six-month patency rates. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129:496-503.
6. Allen KB, Heimansohn DA, Robison RJ, et al. Influence of endoscopic versus traditional saphenectomy on event-free survival: five-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Heart Surg Forum. 2003;6:E143-E145.
7. Allen KB, Griffith GL, Heimansohn DA, et al. Endoscopic versus traditional saphenous vein harvesting: a prospective, randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:26-31.
8. Zenati MA, Shroyer AL, Collins JF, et al. Impact of endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest technique on late coronary artery bypass grafting patient outcomes in the ROOBY (Randomized On/Off Bypass) Trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141:338-344.
9. Lopes RD, Hafley GE, Allen KB, et al. Endoscopic versus open vein-graft harvesting in coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:235-244.
10. Williams JB, Peterson ED, Brennan JM. Association between endoscopic vs open vein-graft harvesting and mortality, wound complications, and cardiovascular events in patients undergoing CABG surgery. JAMA. 2012;308:475-484.
11. Dacey LJ, Braxton JH, Kramer RS, et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic vein harvesting after coronary artery bypass grafting. Circulation. 2011;123:147-153.
12. Alexander JH, Hafley G, Harrington RA, et al. Efficacy and safety of edifoligide, an E2F transcription factor decoy, for prevention of vein graft failure following coronary artery bypass graft surgery: PREVENT IV: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;294:2446-2454.
13. Brown EN, Kon ZN, Tran R, et al. Strategies to reduce intraluminal clot formation in endoscopically harvested saphenous veins. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:1259-1265.
14. Patel NN, Angelini GD. Surgery: open or endoscopic vein graft harvesting-this is the question! Nat Rev Cardiol. 2009;6:738-740.
15. Alexander JH, Ferguson TB, Jr, Joseph DM, et al. The PRoject of Ex-vivo Vein graft ENgineering via Transfection IV (PREVENT IV) trial: study rationale, design, and baseline patient characteristics. Am Heart J. 2005;150:643-649.
16. Magee MJ, Alexander JH, Hafley G, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft failure after on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass: findings from PREVENT IV. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008:85:494-500.
17. Lopes RD, Williams JB, Mehta RH, et al. Edifoligide and long-term outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting: PRoject of Ex-vivo Vein graft ENgineering via Transfection IV (PREVENT IV) 5-year results. Am Heart J. 2012:164:379-386.
18. Vu HTV, Knuiman MW. A hybrid ML-EM algorithm for calculation of maximum likelihood estimates in semiparametric shared frailty models. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2002;40:173-187.
19. Schurr UP, Lachat ML, Reuthebuch O, et al. Endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting for CABG-a randomized, prospective trial. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;50:160-163.
20. Ouzounian M, Hassan A, Buth KJ, et al. Impact of endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest techniques on outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:403-408.
21. Lumsden AB, Eaves FF, III, Ofenloch JC, et al. Subcutaneous, videoassisted saphenous vein harvest: report of the first 30 cases. Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;4:771-776.
22. Athanasiou T, Aziz O, Skapinakis P, et al. Leg wound infection after coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus conventional vein harvesting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;76:2141-2146.
23. Athanasiou T, Aziz O, Al-Ruzzeh S, et al. Are wound healing disturbances and length of hospital stay reduced with minimally invasive vein harvest? A meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004;26:1015-1026.
24. García-Altés A, Peiró S. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness evidence of endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting: is it efficient? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;41:831-836.
25. Rousou LJ, Taylor KB, Lu X-G, et al. Saphenous vein conduits harvested by endoscopic technique exhibit structural and functional damage. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87:62-70.
26. Griffith GL, Allen KB, Waller BF, et al. Endoscopic and traditional saphenous vein harvest: a histologic comparison. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:520-523.
27. Desai P, Kiani S, Thiruvanthan N, et al. Impact of the learning curve for endoscopic vein harvest on conduit quality and early graft patency. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:1385-1392.
28. Hayward PA, Gordon IR, Hare DL, et al. Comparable patencies of the radial artery and right internal thoracic artery or saphenous vein beyond 5 years: results from the Radial Artery Patency and Clinical Outcomes trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139:60-70.