Trial reportAnnals of surgery2014
Endoscopic harvesting device type and outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery.
Trial report in Annals of surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Lymphatic complication in open venous harvesting versus endoscopic venous harvesting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- The back-approach technique of endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2021Article
- Endothelial loss during the surgical procedure in saphenous veins harvested by open and endoscopic techniques in coronary artery bypass surgery.Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences · 2020Article
- Graft patency after open versus endoscopic saphenous vein harvest in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2018Article
- Mechanotransduction in Coronary Vein Graft Disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Article
- Vein graft failure: from pathophysiology to clinical outcomes.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2016Review
- Clinicopathological comparisons of open vein harvesting and endoscopic vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting patients in Mashhad.Electronic physician · 2016Article
- Response to Letters Regarding Article, "Saphenous Vein Graft Failure After Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Insights From PREVENT IV".Circulation · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate angiographic and clinical outcomes associated with open and closed dissection tunnel endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) devices.
backgroundA previous PREVENT-IV (PRoject of Ex-vivo Vein graft ENgineering via Transfection IV) analysis reported that EVH for coronary artery bypass graft surgery was associated with worse outcomes than with traditional vein harvesting; however, outcomes by EVH device type were not available.
methodsUsing data from the PREVENT-IV trial, we compared 1549 patients from 75 surgical sites who underwent EVH with open (n = 390) or closed (n = 1159) harvest tunnel devices. Outcomes included the incidence of vein graft failure at 12 to 18 months and a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization through 5 years.
resultsAmong patients undergoing open and closed tunnel EVH, no difference in the per-patient incidence of vein graft failure (43.8% vs 47.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.55; P = 0.724) or per-graft incidence of vein graft failure (25.5% vs 25.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.55; P = 0.847) was observed. At 5 years, no difference was observed in the primary composite clinical outcome between patients who underwent open and closed system EVH (21.5% vs 23.9%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.10; P = 0.221).
conclusionsNo differences in angiographic or clinical outcomes were observed among patients who underwent open versus closed tunnel endoscopic harvesting for coronary bypass surgery. These findings suggest that the risks associated with EVH that were reported in a previous PREVENT-IV analysis are not related to a specific EVH device.
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.