ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
Mid-term outcomes of endoscopic vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. 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.
- Comprehensive angiographic evaluation of graft quality after endoscopic vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- OPCAB in the minimally invasive era: impact on wound complications-a comparative study with on-pump CABG.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEndoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) is an alternative technique to obtain the saphenous vein for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. We aimed to evaluate the early and mid-term outcomes of patients with EVH in CABG.
methodsThis cohort study included consecutive isolated CABG patients in Nanjing First Hospital from July 2020 to December 2022 using propensity score matching methods. Patients were classified to EVH group and open vein harvesting (OVH) group according to the vein harvesting methods. The primary outcome was the all-cause death, and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) including cardiovascular death, heart failure, myocardial infarction and revascularization and asymptomatic survival in the follow-up.
resultsTotally 1247 patients were included in the study with 849 in OVH group and 398 in EVH group. Patients with EVH were more female, diabetes, higher body mass index, more multi-vessel and left main diseases. 308 pairs were formed after the matching. There was no significant difference in the rates of in-hospital death (EVH vs. OVH, 2.3% vs. 1.3%, P = 0.543). During the 3 years follow-up, EVH grafts were considered not inferior to OVH grafts, no differences were found in all-cause death [8.5% vs. 5.0%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.565, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.77-3.17, P = 0.21], MACEs (8.1% vs. 7.1%, HR 1.165, 95CI: 0.51-2.69, P = 0.71) and asymptomatic survival (66.7% vs. 72.5%, HR 1.117, 95%CI: 0.65-1.92, P = 0.68).
conclusionsEVH grafts were considered comparable to OVH grafts in patients following CABG in the 3 years follow-up.
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.