ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
Superior long-term patency of no-touch vein graft compared to conventional vein grafts in over 1500 consecutive patients.
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. It is linked to trial NCT04656366 (Coronary Angiographical Results in Patients With Angina After CABG), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Coronary Angiographical Results in Patients With Angina After CABG: Comparison Between No-touch and Conventional Vein Graft
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Great Saphenous Vein Lumen: Intimal Openings.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2026Review
- Comprehensive angiographic evaluation of graft quality after endoscopic vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Short- and mid-term clinical outcomes of harmonic scalpel-assisted no-touch technique of the saphenous vein grafts harvesting in coronary bypass grafting.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Reducing vasospasm of vein and arterial conduits used in coronary artery bypass surgery: are solutions the solution or is preserved perivascular fat the answer?Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the long-term angiographic patency of saphenous vein grafts (SVG) harvested using the no-touch technique compared to the conventional technique.
methodsThis was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study. The inclusion criteria were individuals who underwent a CABG (coronary artery bypass grafting) between January 1995 and July 2020, and who successively needed a clinically-driven angiography. The primary endpoint was long-term patency. The secondary endpoints were differences in patency based on sub-group analysis (single vs. sequential graft, divided by target vessel).
resultsThe study included 1520 individuals (618 no-touch, 825 conventional and 77 arterial grafts). The mean clinical follow-up time was 8.4 years ± 5.5 years. The patency per patient was 70.7% in the no-touch grafts vs. 46.7% in the conventional grafts (p < 0.001, OR = 2.8). The graft patency was 75.9% in the no-touch grafts vs. 62.8% in the conventional grafts (p < 0.001, OR = 1.8).
conclusionsThe no-touch vein grafts were associated with statistically significantly higher patency at long-term compared to the conventional grafts. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT04656366, 7 December 2020.
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.