No touch vein harvesting technique for CABG improves the long-term clinical outcome

被引:26
|
作者
Johansson, Benny L. [1 ]
Souza, Domingos S. R. [2 ]
Bodin, Lennart [3 ]
Filbey, Derek [4 ]
Bojo, Leif [5 ]
机构
[1] Orebro Univ Hosp, Dept Cardiol, SE-70185 Orebro, Sweden
[2] Orebro Univ Hosp, Dept Cardiothorac Surg, SE-70185 Orebro, Sweden
[3] Orebro Univ Hosp, Dept Biostat, SE-70185 Orebro, Sweden
[4] Orebro Univ Hosp, Dept Transfus Med, SE-70185 Orebro, Sweden
[5] Cent Hosp Karlstad, Dept Clin Physiol, Karlstad, Sweden
关键词
Coronary artery bypass grafts; venous grafts; ischaemia; surgery; ARTERY-BYPASS-SURGERY; INTERNAL MAMMARY ARTERY; NITRIC-OXIDE SYNTHASE; SAPHENOUS-VEIN; GRAFT PATENCY; SURROUNDING TISSUE; RADIAL ARTERY; FOLLOW-UP; CORONARY; ATHEROSCLEROSIS;
D O I
10.1080/14017430802140104
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives. To investigate the long-term clinical outcome, averaging 8.5 years, of two saphenous vein harvesting techniques for CABG; no touch (NT) versus conventional (C). Design. In a randomized study, 49/52 in group NT and 44/52 in group conventional were evaluated for reangina, myocardial infarction, new revascularization, functional class, risk factors and medical treatment. The vein grafts and the native coronary arteries were correlated to the occurrence of reangina. Results. There were significantly more patients free from angina and in NYHA class I (67.3 versus 43.2%; p =0.02) in group NT compared to group C. No cardiac death was found in group NT versus three in group C. There were trends towards fewer patients with cardiac death or myocardial infarction (3.8 vs. 13.4%; p =0.16), more patients free from angina (75.5 vs. 63.6%; p =0.26) and fewer patients with graft occlusion (24.3 vs. 43.2% (p =0.14) in group NT. Conclusions. The results of the NT-technique are encouraging with no cardiac deaths, significantly more asymptomatic patients and a trend towards impact on hard clinical endpoints compared to the conventional technique.
引用
收藏
页码:63 / 68
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Does Preoperative MR Affect Long-term Outcome of CABG in Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy?
    Fukushima, Satsuki
    Toda, Koichi
    Nakamura, Teruya
    Miyagawa, Shigeru
    Yoshikawa, Yasushi
    Kawamura, Masashi
    Yoshioka, Daisuke
    Ueno, Takayoshi
    Kuratani, Toru
    Sawa, Yoshiki
    JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE, 2014, 20 (10) : S155 - S155
  • [22] Surgical Aspects of No-Touch Saphenous Vein Graft Harvesting in CABG: Clinical and Angiographic Follow-Up at 3 Months
    Samano, Ninos
    Pinheiro, Bruno Botelho
    Souza, Domingos
    BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2019, 34 (01) : 98 - 100
  • [23] Arm vein reconstruction for limb salvage: Long-term outcome
    Tisi, PV
    Crow, AJ
    Shearman, CP
    ANNALS OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND, 1996, 78 (06) : 497 - 500
  • [24] Clinical outcome of GBM long-term survivors
    Flechl, B.
    Ackerl, M.
    Sax, C.
    Dieckmann, K.
    Crevenna, R.
    Widhalm, G.
    Preusser, M.
    Marosi, C.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2011, 29 (15)
  • [25] Clinical Outcome and Long-term Remission in JIA
    Glerup, Mia
    Herlin, T.
    Twilt, M.
    CURRENT RHEUMATOLOGY REPORTS, 2017, 19 (12)
  • [26] LONG-TERM DIAZEPAM THERAPY AND CLINICAL OUTCOME
    RICKELS, K
    CASE, WG
    DOWNING, RW
    WINOKUR, A
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1983, 250 (06): : 767 - 771
  • [27] CLINICAL OUTCOME OF GBM LONG-TERM SURVIVORS
    Flechl, Birgit
    Ackerl, Michael
    Sax, Cornelia
    Dieckmann, Karin
    Crevenna, Richard
    Widhalm, Georg
    Preusser, Matthias
    Marosi, Christine
    NEURO-ONCOLOGY, 2011, 13 : 44 - 44
  • [28] Clinical Outcome and Long-term Remission in JIA
    Mia Glerup
    T. Herlin
    M. Twilt
    Current Rheumatology Reports, 2017, 19
  • [29] Long-term clinical outcome of irritantinduced asthma
    Lantto, Jussi
    Suojalehto, Hille
    Lindtrom, Irmeli
    EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2023, 62
  • [30] Long-term clinical outcome in vestibular neuritis
    Bronstein, Adolfo M.
    Dieterich, Marianne
    CURRENT OPINION IN NEUROLOGY, 2019, 32 (01) : 174 - 180