Back

Superior long-term patency of no-touch vein graft compared to conventional vein grafts in over 1500 consecutive patients

Ferrari, G.; Loayza, R.; Azari, A.; Geijer, H.; Cao, Y.; Carlsson, R.; Bojö, L.; Samano, N.; Souza, D. S.

2024-02-21 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2024.02.19.24303064 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the long-term angiographic patency of saphenous vein grafts (SVG) harvested using the no-touch technique compared to the conventional technique. MethodsThis was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study. The inclusion criteria were individuals who underwent a CABG (coronary artery bypass grafting) between January 1995 and July 2020, and who successively needed a clinically-driven angiography. The primary endpoint was long-term patency. The secondary endpoints were differences in patency based on sub-group analysis (single vs. sequential graft, divided by target vessel). ResultsThe study included 1520 individuals (618 no-touch, 825 conventional and 77 arterial grafts). The mean clinical follow-up time was 8.4 years {+/-} 5.5 years. The patency per patient was 70.7% in the no-touch grafts vs. 46.7% in the conventional grafts (p < 0.001, OR = 2.8). The graft patency was 75.9% in the no-touch grafts vs. 62.8% in the conventional grafts (p < 0.001, OR= 1.8). ConclusionsThe no-touch vein grafts were associated with statistically significantly higher patency at long-term compared to the conventional grafts. Clinical Trial RegistrationNCT04656366, 7 December 2020 Clinical Perspective- What is new? The largest follow-up of the patency of no-touch vein grafts in the international literature. Patients with a no-touch vein graft had significantly better patency (p < 0.001) at mean follow-up of more than 8 years. - What are the clinical implications? Consequent reduction in cardiovascular events after no-touch vein graft. Benefits at individual level due to fewer episodes of re-angina and myocardial infarction, and fewer coronary interventions. Benefits at community level due to fewer re-hospitalizations and a reduction in healthcare costs.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.