English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background:  Utilisation of the Endoscopic Vein Harvesting (EVH) technique has been increasing for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the last two decades. Some surgeons remain concerned about the long-term patency of the long saphenous vein harvested endoscopically compared to traditional Open Vein Harvesting (OVH). The aim of this study was to perform a retrospective analysis of the outcomes between EVH and OVH from three UK centres with 10 years follow-up.    Methods:  27,024 patients underwent CABG with long saphenous vein harvested by EVH (n=13,794) or OVH (n=13,230) in three UK centres between 2007 and 2019. Propensity modelling was used to calculate the Inverse Probability of Treatment Weights (IPTW). The primary endpoint was mortality from all causes and secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and incidence of repeat coronary re-vascularisation for symptomatic patients. IPTW was used to balance the two intervention groups for baseline and preoperative co-morbidities.    Results:  Median follow-up time was 4.54 years for EVH and 6.00 years for OVH. Death from any cause occurred in 13.8% of the EVH group versus 20.8% in the OVH group over the follow-up period. The hazard ratio of death (EVH to OVH) was 0.823 (95% CI: 0.767, 0.884). Length of hospital stay was similar between the groups (p=0.86). Post-operative pulmonary complications were more common in EVH vs OVH (14.7% vs. 12.8%, p&lt;0.001), but repeat coronary re-vascularisation was similar between the groups.    Conclusion:  This large retrospective multicentre analysis indicates that EVH has a lower risk of mortality compared with OVH during the follow-up period of the study. The observed benefits of EVH may outweigh the risks but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. We hope this review gives confidence to other cardiac centres that offering an EVH approach to conduit harvesting does not affect long term patient outcomes.

A multicentre review comparing long term outcomes of endoscopic vein harvesting versus open vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass surgery