Research reviewEndoscopic vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review with meta-analysis of 27,789 patients
Introduction
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains the gold standard in the treatment of multi-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) [1]. Although complete arterial revascularization is increasingly propagated, the great saphenous vein still remains the most frequently used conduit for CABG. Following a long leg incision, conventional vein harvesting (CVH) is performed under direct visualization using a no-touch technique. The invasiveness of the open harvesting technique is associated with postoperative pain and leg wound infection that may prolong hospitalization of patients [2], [3]. The recent introduction of total endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) has been associated with a substantial decrease in postoperative leg wound healing disorders after CABG [2], [3]. Consequently, a consensus statement published in 2005 by the International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery recommends the use of EVH for CABG [4], and data from US registries confirm the wide adoption of EVH in up to 75% of performed CABG procedures [5], [6].
Previous systematic reviews uniformly document the superiority of minimal invasive over conventional harvesting techniques in terms postoperative associated leg wound morbidity [2], [3], [7], [8]. However, accumulating evidence from recently published reports raise serious concerns with regard to the quality and midterm patency of grafts after EVH and fundamentally questions its value for CABG [9], [10]. Post-hoc analysis from the PREVENT-IV study (Project of Ex-Vivo Vein Graft Engineering Via Transfection IV) [9] and the ROOBY trial (Randomized On/Off Bypass) [10] revealed decreased graft patency rates after EVH compared with CVH that were associated to inferior clinical outcomes. Although the underlying reasons remain unclear, increased surgical manipulation of the VSM during EVH resulting in endothelial injury has been reported by some investigators as a causal role for vein graft failure compared with the conventional techniques [11]. Others have failed to demonstrate a difference with regard to endothelial damage among harvesting techniques [12].
In view of the limited clarity of available data, the present meta-analysis assessed the strength of evidence of EVH use for CABG with special focus on graft-related outcome, including vein graft failure, myocardial infarction (MI), and mortality.
Section snippets
Selection criteria and search strategy
This systematic review of the literature was performed according to the guidelines for Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analysis [13]. Randomized controlled (RCT) and observational trials (OT) published between 1966 and April 2011 that reported the effects of EVH on postoperative outcomes in adult patients undergoing CABG were identified and analyzed with respect to the a priori defined inclusion criteria: (1) use of any commercially available endoscopic device for saphenous vein harvesting during
Selection and characteristics of included studies
The search of the literature retrieved 1119 studies. Following the de-duplication, 613 trials (91%) were excluded after initial abstract review for reasons explained in Figure 1. Of the remaining 60 studies, 17 studies were excluded after full-text evaluation either since they missed the inclusion criteria (n = 8 no EVH use; n = 1 no CABG), for not reporting desired endpoints (n = 4), due to inclusion of the same patient population in more than one publication (n = 3), or additional employment
Discussion
The present systematic review represents the largest meta-analysis to date that evaluates the strength of evidence for the use of EVH for CABG. The analyzed clinical endpoints were separated into two main aspects: on the one hand, the directly procedure-related results of EVH on operative variables and wound healing complications, and on the other hand, the potential impact of EVH on graft-related outcomes including vein graft failure, MI, and mortality.
Primarily, our results indicate a
Limitations
Our review has several important limitations that need to be considered for accurate interpretation of the reported treatment effects. First, our analysis revealed an unequal distribution of potential confounding factors among treatment groups, with patients in the EVH group being more obese and having a higher prevalence of diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and aspirin therapy before surgery. Thus, the definite impact of this treatment bias and unequal distribution of risk factors on the
Acknowledgments
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References (58)
- et al.
Leg wound infection after coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus conventional vein harvesting
Ann Thorac Surg
(2003) - et al.
Impact of endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest techniques on outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting
Ann Thorac Surg
(2010) - et al.
Saphenous vein conduits harvested by endoscopic technique exhibit structural and functional damage
Ann Thorac Surg
(2009) - et al.
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration
J Clin Epidemiol
(2009) - et al.
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?
Control Clin Trials
(1996) - et al.
Endoscopic versus traditional saphenous vein harvesting: a prospective, randomized trial
Ann Thorac Surg
(1998) - et al.
Endoscopic vein harvest: advantages and limitations
Ann Thorac Surg
(2004) - et al.
Clinical benefits of endoscopic vein harvesting in patients with risk factors for saphenectomy wound infections undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
(2000) - et al.
Minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting techniques: morphology and postoperative outcome
Ann Thorac Surg
(2000) - et al.
Endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest: the effect on postoperative outcomes
Ann Thorac Surg
(1999)
A prospective randomized trial of endoscopic versus conventional harvesting of the saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass surgery
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
Early quantitative coronary angiography of saphenous vein grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting harvested by means of open versus endoscopic saphenectomy: a prospective randomized trial
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
A randomized trial of endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest in coronary bypass surgery
Ann Thorac Surg
Randomized trial of endoscopic versus open vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: six-month patency rates
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
Endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest: a comparison of postoperative wound complications
Ann Thorac Surg
Open versus endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting: wound complications and vein quality
Ann Thorac Surg
Operative outcomes of minimally invasive saphenous vein harvest
Am J Surg
Clinical experience with the video-assisted saphenectomy procedure for coronary bypass operations
Ann Thorac Surg
Endoscopic vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: technique and outcomes
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
Endoscopic greater saphenous vein harvesting reduces the morbidity of coronary artery bypass surgery
Am J Surg
Minimally invasive saphenous vein harvesting
Ann Thorac Surg
Prospective analysis of endoscopic vein harvesting
Am J Surg
Traction injury during minimally invasive harvesting of the saphenous vein is associated with impaired endothelial function
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
The coronary artery bypass conduit: I. Intraoperative endothelial injury and its implication on graft patency
Ann Thorac Surg
A systematic review of cost-effectiveness evidence of endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting: is it efficient?
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
Guidelines on myocardial revascularization
Eur Heart J
A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus traditional open vein harvest technique for coronary artery bypass graft surgery
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg
Endoscopic Vascular Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: A Consensus Statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) 2005
Innovations: Technol Tech Cardiothorac Vasc Surg
Long-term outcomes of endoscopic vein harvesting after coronary artery bypass grafting
Circulation
Cited by (61)
Expert systematic review on the choice of conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting: endorsed by the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)
2023, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryEconomic Evaluation of Endoscopic vs Open Vein Harvesting
2023, Annals of Thoracic SurgeryBenefits of Endoscopic Vein Harvesting in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
2019, Annals of Thoracic SurgeryCitation Excerpt :In this present study, a significantly higher rate of leg wound complications was observed in the OVH group compared with the EVH group. The results of the present study are comparable with those of previous publications on leg wound complications after EVH.1,7,9,11 Another strength of the present study is that no selection criteria were used in the selection of patients for EVH or OVH.
State-of-the-Art Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Patient Selection, Graft Selection, and Optimizing Outcomes
2019, Interventional Cardiology Clinics
- 1
These authors contributed equally to this work.