Trial reportEuropean heart journal2025
No-touch vein grafts in coronary artery bypass surgery: a registry-based randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in European heart journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03501303 (A Nordic, Multicentre, Prospective, Randomized, Register Based, Clinical Trial on No-touch Vein Graft), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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.
A Nordic, Multicentre, Prospective, Randomized, Register Based, Clinical Trial on No-touch Vein Graft (NT-graft) in Coronary Surgery
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 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
- Pooled it
- The SWEDEGRAFT Saphenous Vein Trial: A Study of No-Touch vs. Nordic Grafts?Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Vein graft failure: Pathophysiology, detection, prevention and emerging therapeutic strategies.Pharmacological reviews · 2026Review
- Article
- No-touch versus conventional vein harvesting in coronary bypass surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Determinants of graft patency after coronary artery bypass grafting.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Comprehensive angiographic evaluation of graft quality after endoscopic vein harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Evidence for a Clinically Meaningful Effect of no-Touch Harvesting Technique on Vein Graft Patency-A Bayesian Reanalysis of the SWEDEGRAFT Trial.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Article
- The Clinical Utility of No-Touch Saphenous Vein Grafting as a Second Conduit in Multivessel Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsNo-touch saphenous vein harvesting may enhance graft patency and improve clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
methodsIn this registry-based, randomized trial, patients undergoing CABG were randomly assigned to no-touch or conventional harvesting. The primary composite outcome was the proportion of patients with occluded/stenosed >50% vein graft on coronary computed tomography angiography, or who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention to a vein graft, or died. Secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes and leg wound complications.
resultsA total of 902 patients were enrolled with a mean total number of distal vein anastomoses of 2.0 (SD 0.87). The primary endpoint occurred in 90/454 (19.8%) of patients randomized to no-touch and in 107/446 (24.0%) of patients randomized to the conventional technique [difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.1-1.6; P = .15] at a mean follow-up time of 3.5 (SD 0.1) years. The composite of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization at 4.4 (SD 1.3) years occurred in 57/454 (12.6%) and 44/446 (9.9%) in the no-touch and conventional groups, respectively (hazard ratio 1.3; 95% CI, 0.87-1.93). Leg wound complications were more common in patients assigned to no-touch harvesting at 3 months [107/433 (24.7%) vs. 59/427 (13.8%); difference, 10.9 percentage points; 95% CI 5.7-16.1]. At 2 years, 189/381 (49.6%) vs. 91/361 (25.2%) had remaining leg symptoms (difference, 24.4 percentage points; 95% CI 17.7-31.1).
conclusionsNo-touch vein graft harvesting for CABG was not superior to conventional open harvesting in reducing vein graft failure or clinical events after CABG but increased leg wound complications. The primary outcome requires cautious interpretation due to a lower-than-expected number of primary events.
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.