ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2020
The clinical application of microincision vein harvesting of the great saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass grafting.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2020. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aimed to summarize the clinical application of microincision vein harvesting (MVH) of the great saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
methodsFrom July 2014 to October 2017, 160 patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting. Among them, 80 patients received MVH of the great saphenous vein, and 80 received open venous harvesting (OVH). The results of the sampling operation, complications during hospitalization, and the long-term patency of the great saphenous vein were compared between the two groups.
resultsAll the patients in both groups received successful operations. The difference in the length of the veins obtained and the injury of the veins was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The difference in the long-term patency rate of the graft vessels between the two groups was not statistically significant. The in-hospital mortality rate was the same in both groups. The MVH group had noticeable advantages over the OVH group in terms of the vein collection times, the incision length, and the complications experienced when performing the leg incisions (P < 0.01). The time relating to the patients' observed early out-of-bed activity was significantly longer in the MVH group. Furthermore, the patients' hospitalization length was significantly shorter in the MVH group compared to the OVH group (P < 0.05). The MVH group had significant advantages in pain score and patient satisfaction, and this difference was also statistically significant (P < 0.05).
conclusionsThe MVH procedure met the requirements of CABG in vein grafting. When compared with OVH, MVH can significantly reduce leg incision complications and improve patients' overall satisfaction with their hospital experience.
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.