SynthesisOpen heart2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of no-touch versus conventional vein harvesting techniques in coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis meta-analysis aims to compare the clinical outcomes of the no-touch (NT) and conventional (CON) vein harvesting techniques in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) statement. We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NT and CON vein harvesting techniques in CABG patients. Data were extracted on primary outcomes (graft failure incidence per patient, graft occlusion incidence per patient and leg infection) and secondary outcomes (revascularisation, all-cause death, myocardial infarction). Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager V.5.4, with risk ratios (RRs) calculated for binary outcomes.
resultsSeven RCTs involving 4176 patients were included. The NT group showed a significantly lower risk of graft failure incidence per patient (RR=0.74, p=0.0001) and graft occlusion incidence per patient (RR=0.62, p=0.0002) compared with the CON group. However, the NT group had a higher risk of leg infection (RR=1.91, p<0.00001). No significant differences were observed between groups for revascularisation (p=0.46), all-cause death (p=0.87), or myocardial infarction (p=0.95).
conclusionsThe no-touch vein harvesting technique is associated with reduced graft failure incidence per patient and graft occlusion incidence per patient compared with conventional harvesting techniques in CABG, though it increases the risk of leg infection. These findings suggest NT as a preferable technique for improving graft patency but highlight the need for caution regarding leg infection. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42025646500.
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.