Association Between Endoscopic vs Open Vein-Graft Harvesting and Mortality, Wound Complications, and Cardiovascular Events in Patients Undergoing CABG Surgery | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.173.234.169. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Lumsden AB, Eaves FF III, Ofenloch JC, Jordan WD. Subcutaneous, video-assisted saphenous vein harvest: report of the first 30 cases.  Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;4(6):771-7769013008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Allen KB, Griffith GL, Heimansohn DA,  et al.  Endoscopic versus traditional saphenous vein harvesting: a prospective, randomized trial.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66(1):26-319692434PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Puskas JD, Wright CE, Miller PK,  et al.  A randomized trial of endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest in coronary bypass surgery.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68(4):1509-151210543556PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Shahian DM, O’Brien SM, Filardo G,  et al; Society of Thoracic Surgeons Quality Measurement Task Force.  The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1—coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88(1):(suppl)  S2-S2219559822PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Lopes RD, Hafley GE, Allen KB,  et al.  Endoscopic versus open vein-graft harvesting in coronary-artery bypass surgery.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(3):235-24419605828PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Dacey LJ, Braxton JH Jr, Kramer RS,  et al; Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group.  Long-term outcomes of endoscopic vein harvesting after coronary artery bypass grafting.  Circulation. 2011;123(2):147-15321200010PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
O’Brien SM, Shahian DM, Filardo G,  et al; Society of Thoracic Surgeons Quality Measurement Task Force.  The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 2—isolated valve surgery.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88(1):(suppl)  S23-S4219559823PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Welke KF, Ferguson TB Jr, Coombs LP,  et al.  Validity of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77(4):1137-113915063217PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Jacobs JP, Edwards FH, Shahian DM,  et al.  Successful linking of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare data.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90(4):1150-115620868806PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Hammill BG, Hernandez AF, Peterson ED, Fonarow GC, Schulman KA, Curtis LH. Linking inpatient clinical registry data to Medicare claims data using indirect identifiers.  Am Heart J. 2009;157(6):995-100019464409PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects.  Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55Google ScholarCrossref
12.
Austin PC. A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003.  Stat Med. 2008;27(12):2037-204918038446PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Zeger SL, Liang KY. Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes.  Biometrics. 1986;42(1):121-1303719049PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Curtis LH, Hammill BG, Eisenstein EL, Kramer JM, Anstrom KJ. Using inverse probability-weighted estimators in comparative effectiveness analyses with observational databases.  Med Care. 2007;45(10):(suppl 2)  S103-S10717909367PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Cole SR, Hernán MA. Adjusted survival curves with inverse probability weights.  Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2004;75(1):45-4915158046PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Lin DY, Wei LJ. The robust inference for the proportional hazard model.  J Am Stat Assoc. 1989;(84):1074-1078Google Scholar
17.
Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations.  J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;(53):457-481Google Scholar
18.
Breslow NE. Discussion of Professor Cox's paper.  J R Stat Soc [Ser A]. 1972;(34):216-217Google Scholar
19.
Zucker DM, Spiegelman D. Corrected score estimation in the proportional hazards model with misclassified discrete covariates.  Stat Med. 2008;27(11):1911-193318219700PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Lin DY, Psaty BM, Kronmal RA. Assessing the sensitivity of regression results to unmeasured confounders in observational studies.  Biometrics. 1998;54(3):948-9639750244PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Lumsden AB, Eaves FF III. Vein harvest in endoscopic plastic surgery. In: Bostwick J EIF, Nahai F, eds. Endoscopic Plastic Surgery. St Louis, MO: Quality Medical; 1995:535-545
22.
Yun KL, Wu Y, Aharonian V,  et al.  Randomized trial of endoscopic versus open vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: six-month patency rates.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129(3):496-50315746730PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Kiaii B, Moon BC, Massel D,  et al.  A prospective randomized trial of endoscopic versus conventional harvesting of the saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass surgery.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;123(2):204-21211828277PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Andreasen JJ, Nekrasas V, Dethlefsen C. Endoscopic vs open saphenous vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: a prospective randomized trial.  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2008;34(2):384-38918508277PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Wang S, Tang H, Wilkinson V,  et al.  Saphenous vein harvest with SaphLITE system versus conventional technique: a prospective, randomized study.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79(6):2018-202315919302PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Schurr UP, Lachat ML, Reuthebuch O,  et al.  Endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting for CABG: a randomized, prospective trial.  Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;50(3):160-16312077689PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Allen KB, Heimansohn DA, Robison RJ, Schier JJ, Griffith GL, Fitzgerald EB. Influence of endoscopic versus traditional saphenectomy on event-free survival: five-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial.  Heart Surg Forum. 2003;6(6):E143-E14514722001PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Allen K, Cheng D, Cohn W,  et al.  Endoscopic vascular harvest in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a consensus statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS).  Innovations (Phila). 2005;1(2):51-6022436545PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Markar SR, Kutty R, Edmonds L, Sadat U, Nair S. A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus traditional open vein harvest technique for coronary artery bypass graft surgery.  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;10(2):266-27019942633PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Patel NN, Angelini GD. Surgery: Open or endoscopic vein graft harvesting-this is the question!  Nat Rev Cardiol. 2009;6(12):738-74019935681PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Connolly MW, Poston RS. Endoscopic versus open vein-graft harvesting.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(19):1907-190819911452PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Barnard JB, Keenan DJ.National Institute for Health and Clinical.  Endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafts: NICE guidance.  Heart. 2011;97(4):327-32921148577PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Ouzounian M, Hassan A, Buth KJ,  et al.  Impact of endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest techniques on outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89(2):403-40820103309PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Alexander JH, Hafley G, Harrington RA,  et al;  PREVENT IV Investigators.  Efficacy and safety of edifoligide, an E2F transcription factor decoy, for prevention of vein graft failure following coronary artery bypass graft surgery: PREVENT IV: a randomized controlled trial.  JAMA. 2005;294(19):2446-245416287955PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
NICE.  Endoscopic Saphenous Vein Harvest for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Interventional Procedure Guidance. London, England: NICE; 2010
36.
Shroyer AL, Grover FL, Hattler B,  et al; Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) Study Group.  On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(19):1827-183719890125PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Zenati MA, Shroyer AL, Collins JF,  et al.  Impact of endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest technique on late coronary artery bypass grafting patient outcomes in the ROOBY (Randomized On/Off Bypass) trial.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;141(2):338-34421130476PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Cook RC, Crowley CM, Hayden R,  et al.  Traction injury during minimally invasive harvesting of the saphenous vein is associated with impaired endothelial function.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127(1):65-7114752414PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Rousou LJ, Taylor KB, Lu XG,  et al.  Saphenous vein conduits harvested by endoscopic technique exhibit structural and functional damage.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87(1):62-7019101270PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Contribution
August 1, 2012

Association Between Endoscopic vs Open Vein-Graft Harvesting and Mortality, Wound Complications, and Cardiovascular Events in Patients Undergoing CABG Surgery

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Duke Clinical Research Institute (Drs Williams, Peterson, Brennan, Alexander, Lopes, Zhao, and O’Brien and Ms Dokholyan) and Departments of Surgery (Drs Williams and Smith) and Medicine (Drs Peterson, Brennan, Alexander, and Lopes), Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York (Dr Sedrakyan); US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland (Drs Tavris, Duggirala, Gross, and Marinac-Dabic); Department of Cardio vascular and Thoracic Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York (Dr Michler); Joseph B. Whitehead Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia (Dr Thourani); and Shands Hospital, University of Florida, Jacksonville (Dr Edwards).

JAMA. 2012;308(5):475-484. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.8363
Abstract

Context The safety and durability of endoscopic vein graft harvest in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has recently been called into question.

Objective To compare the long-term outcomes of endoscopic vs open vein-graft harvesting for Medicare patients undergoing CABG surgery in the United States.

Design, Setting, and Patients An observational study of 235 394 Medicare patients undergoing isolated CABG surgery between 2003 and 2008 at 934 surgical centers participating in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) national database. The STS records were linked to Medicare files to allow longitudinal assessment (median 3-year follow-up) through December 31, 2008.

Main Outcome Measures All-cause mortality. Secondary outcome measures included wound complications and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization.

Results Based on Medicare Part B coding, 52% of patients received endoscopic vein-graft harvesting during CABG surgery. After propensity score adjustment for clinical characteristics, there were no significant differences between long-term mortality rates (13.2% [12 429 events] vs 13.4% [13 096 events]) and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization (19.5% [18 419 events] vs 19.7% [19 232 events]). Time-to-event analysis for those patients receiving endoscopic vs open vein-graft harvesting revealed adjusted hazard ratios [HRs] of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.04) for mortality and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.98-1.05) for the composite outcome. Endoscopic vein-graft harvesting was associated with lower harvest site wound complications relative to open vein-graft harvesting (3.0% [3654/122 899 events] vs 3.6% [4047/112 495 events]; adjusted HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89; P < .001).

Conclusion Among patients undergoing CABG surgery, the use of endoscopic vein-graft harvesting compared with open vein-graft harvesting was not associated with increased mortality.

×