ArticleAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery2018
Graft patency after open versus endoscopic saphenous vein harvest in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07002658 (Endoscopic Saphenous Vein Harvesting Versus Conventional Open Harvesting in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting, Either Alone or in Combination With Another Cardiac Surgical Procedure, in Terms of the Clinical Impact of Surgical Wound Morbidity), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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.
Endoscopic Saphenous Vein Harvesting Versus Conventional Open Harvesting in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting, Either Alone or in Combination With Another Cardiac Surgical Procedure, in Terms of the Clinical Impact of Surgical Wound Morbidity
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Techniques for harvesting the saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass grafting: a network systematic review and meta-analysis.Open heart · 2025Pooled it
- Endoscopic versus open vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Development of a risk score for early saphenous vein graft failure: An individual patient data meta-analysis.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Prevalence and Impact of Treatment Crossover in Cardiac Surgery Randomized Trials: A Meta-Epidemiologic Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2019Pooled it
- Intimal hyperplasia, saphenous vein graft disease, and clinical outcomes: Insights from the CTSN VEST randomized trial.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024Trial
- Vein graft failure: Pathophysiology, detection, prevention and emerging therapeutic strategies.Pharmacological reviews · 2026Review
- OPCAB in the minimally invasive era: impact on wound complications-a comparative study with on-pump CABG.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Comprehensive angiographic evaluation of graft quality after endoscopic vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Intra-operative and post-operative management of conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting: a clinical consensus statement of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Coronary Task Force.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2024Review
- Graft flow assessment and early coronary artery bypass graft failure: a computed tomography analysis.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2022Article
- Coronary Artery Bypass: Review of Surgical Techniques and Impact on Long-Term Revascularization Outcomes.Cardiology and therapy · 2021Review
- Endoscopic vein harvesting.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Review
- Commentary: Carbon dioxide embolism during vein harvesting-Directed transesophageal echocardiography for diagnosis and hemodynamic rescue.JTCVS techniques · 2020Article
- Twenty-Five Years of No-Touch Saphenous Vein Harvesting for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Structural Observations and Impact on Graft Performance.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2020Review
- Endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting and surgical site infections after coronary artery bypass surgery.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSaphenous vein grafts (SVG) are a commonly used conduit for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and can be harvested by either an open or endoscopic technique. Our goal was to evaluate long-term angiographic and clinical outcomes of open compared to endoscopic SVG harvest for CABG.
methodsElectronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature that compared open and endoscopic SVG harvesting for CABG with at least one year of follow-up. The primary outcome was graft patency. Secondary outcomes included perioperative morbidity and mortality.
resultsOf 3,255 articles identified, a total of 11 studies were included for analysis. Of 18,131 patients, 10,873 (60%) patients underwent open SVG harvest and 7,258 (40%) patients underwent endoscopic SVG harvest. The mean age of patients was 65 years and 87% were male. The overall mean follow-up period was 2.6 years. During follow-up, patients who underwent open SVG harvest had superior graft patency per graft [open 82.3%
conclusionsPatients who underwent an open SVG harvest technique had improved graft patency and comparable overall mortality to endoscopic SVG harvest at average follow-up time of 2.6 years. Patients with open SVG harvest had higher rates of early wound complications and postoperative 30-day mortality, however, there was no difference in overall mortality.
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.