Is it safe to perform endoscopic vein harvest?
Open Access
- 1 April 2010
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery
- Vol. 10 (4), 625-630
- https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2009.227090
Abstract
A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: in [patients undergoing coronary revascularisation] is [endoscopic vein harvest] superior to [open harvest] in improving [clinical outcome and cost effectiveness]? Altogether >166 papers were found using the reported search, of which eight represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. All papers agree that endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) reduces the level of postoperative pain (pain score for EVH=0.52±0.95; open technique=1.02±1.51; P=0.03) and wound complications (range from 3 to 7.4% for EVH and 13 to 19.4% for conventional technique). These clinical benefits were associated with a high level of patient satisfaction. On average, four papers found that the length of hospital stay was reduced in the EVH group [weighted mean difference (WMD) –1.04 to –0.85; confidence interval (CI) –1.92 to –0.16; P=0.02]. The overall occlusion rates of venous grafts after six months were 21.7% for EVH and 17.6% for open technique. There were no differences in the six months occlusion and disease rates between EVH and conventional vein harvest (CVH), as determined by means of univariate analysis (P=0.584). However, some papers (PREVENT-IV sub-analysis and Yun et al.) called into question EVH by reporting high vein occlusion rates. At six months, this was 21.7% for EVH and 17.6% for open technique rising to 46.7% vs. 38.0% (PP=0.04), death or myocardial infarction (9.3% vs. 7.6%; P=0.01), and death (7.4% vs. 5.8%; P=0.005). We conclude that EVH reduces the level of postoperative pain and wound complication, with a high-level of patient satisfaction but a sub-analysis of a large RCT has recently called into question the medium- to long-term patency of grafts endoscopically harvested.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Endoscopic versus Open Vein-Graft Harvesting in Coronary-Artery Bypass SurgeryNew England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Leg Wound Infections Following Greater Saphenous Vein Harvesting: Minimally Invasive Vein Harvesting Versus Conventional Vein HarvestingThe International Journal of Lower Extremity Wounds, 2008
- Is minimally invasive harvesting of the great saphenous vein for coronary artery bypass surgery a cost-effective technique?The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2008
- Incidence of Residual Clot Strands in Saphenous Vein Grafts after Endoscopic HarvestInnovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, 2006
- Endoscopic Vascular Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: A Consensus Statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) 2005Innovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, 2005
- Endoscopic Vascular Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials and Controlled TrialsInnovations: Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, 2005
- Randomized trial of endoscopic versus open vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: Six-month patency ratesThe Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2005
- Are wound healing disturbances and length of hospital stay reduced with minimally invasive vein harvest? A meta-analysisEuropean Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, 2004
- Towards evidence-based medicine in cardiothoracic surgery: best BETSInteractive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, 2003