ArticlePerfusion2025
Long-term results of percutaneous coronary intervention in no-touch vein grafts are significantly better than in conventional vein grafts.
Article in Perfusion, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Superior long-term patency of no-touch vein graft compared to conventional vein grafts in over 1500 consecutive patients.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConventional vein grafts have a high risk of thrombosis and early atherosclerosis. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in conventional vein grafts is associated with a higher incidence of late adverse cardiac events. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term results after PCI in saphenous vein grafts (SVG) harvested with the no-touch technique compared to the conventional technique.
methodsThis was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study, based on data from the Swedeheart register. The inclusion criterion was individuals who underwent CABG using different vein graft techniques between January 1992 and July 2020, and who required a PCI in SVGs between January 2006 and July 2020. The primary end point was long-term in-stent restenosis. The secondary endpoints were long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and 1-year re-hospitalization rates. The associations between the graft types and the endpoints were evaluated using the Fine and Gray competing-risk regression analysis.
resultsThe study included 346 individuals (67 no-touch, 279 conventional). The mean clinical follow-up time was 6.4 years with a standard deviation of 3.7 years. The long-term in-stent restenosis rate for the no-touch grafts was 3.2% compared to 18.7% for the conventional grafts (
conclusionsPercutaneous coronary intervention in a no-touch vein graft was associated with statistically significantly fewer in-stent restenoses and MACE at long-term follow-up compared to a conventional SVG.
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.