ArticleInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2013
Endoscopic vein harvesting is influenced by patient-related risk factors and may be of specific benefit in female patients.
Article in Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting and surgical site infections after coronary artery bypass surgery.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Article
- Endoscopic vein harvesting: the growing role in cardiac surgery.Archives of medical sciences. Atherosclerotic diseases · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe standard of care regarding endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) is still inhomogeneous across Europe. The current study aimed at elucidating patient-related factors favouring its application and procedure-related outcome in a tertiary care centre.
methodsAll patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting with or without concomitant valve procedures between 2008 and 2011 were included. Emergency surgery and all arterial revascularization patients were excluded.
resultsA total of 262 endoscopically harvested patients and 623 open vein harvested patients were included. Mortality, perfusion time and cross-clamp time were not significantly different. Peripheral artery disease predisposed open vein harvesting (odds ratio [OR] 1.9; P = 0.001); diabetes and a higher number of diseased coronary vessels favoured EVH (OR 0.6; P = 0.003 and 0.002). Further, the number of bypass grafts was significantly increased in the endoscopic group, but these patients required less periprocedural blood transfusions (1.4 ± 1.8 vs 1.8 ± 3.0; P = 0.035). Minor wound healing complications were more common in the open group (10.3 vs 3.8%; P = 0.001). Severe complications in the leg requiring surgical revision occured in 2.4% of open vein harvested patients compared with 1.1% for endoscopic patients (P = ns). After a multivariate regression analysis, only female gender remained as a significant risk factor for impaired wound healing (OR 2.4; P = 0.001), whereas EVH reduced the risk of wound-healing complications (OR 0.4; P = 0.008).
conclusionsEVH dramatically reduced postoperative would healing complications. Women were more likely to develop mild and severe leg wound complications. Therefore, women may benefit even more from EVH. In general, the favourable outcomes of EVH should result in a more widespread use of this technology in men and women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.