Clinical Outcomes After Surgical Revascularization Using No-Touch Versus Conventional Saphenous Vein Grafts : Mid-Term Follow-Up of Propensity Score Matched Cohorts

Previous studies have demonstrated superior patency of no-touch as compared to conventional saphenous vein grafts in coronary artery bypass grafting. We aimed to compare mid-term clinical outcomes of both techniques in a large cohort of routine patients. We identified all patients undergoing nonemergent primary coronary artery bypass grafting with either no-touch or conventional saphenous vein grafts at our institution between 2000 and 2020. Propensity score matching was used to create adjusted cohorts based on 5288 eligible patients. The primary outcome was the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and repeat revascularization. Secondary outcomes were individual rates of all-cause mortality and repeat revascularization, surgical complications, and short-term mortality. Propensity score matching resulted in cohorts of no-touch (n = 923) and conventional (n = 923) saphenous vein grafted patients with comparable baseline characteristics. Mean follow-up time was significantly shorter for the no-touch compared to the conventional cohort (4.9 ± 2.3 vs 8.3 ± 2.6 years, P < 0.001). Up to 7-year follow-up, neither the rate of the primary composite endpoint nor death differed significantly between the cohorts. The rate of repeat revascularization was significantly higher in patients in the no-touch cohort (12.9% vs 9.3% at 7-year follow-up, P = 0.022. Post-hoc analysis of percutaneous coronary intervention during follow-up revealed comparable rates of saphenous vein graft failure (no-touch 42/923 (4.6%) vs conventional 32/923 (3.5%), P = 0.286). In this large propensity score matched registry study, coronary artery bypass with no-touch compared to conventional saphenous vein grafting did neither enhance mid-term survival nor reduce the rate of repeat revascularization

Impact of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation on systemic inflammatory response – a randomized trial

Abstract Background Extracorporeal circulation causes a systemic inflammatory response, that may cause postoperative haemodynamic instability and end-organ dysfunction. This study aimed to investigate the impact of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) on the systemic inflammatory response compared with conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC). Methods Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting were randomized to MiECC (n = 30) and CECC (n = 30). Primary endpoint was tumor necrosis factor-α. Secondary endpoints were other biochemical markers of inflammation (IL1β, IL6 and IL8, C-reactive protein, leukocytes), and markers of inadequate tissue perfusion and tissue damage (lactate dehydrogenase, lactate and creatine kinase-MB). In addition, we registered signs of systemic inflammatory response syndrome, haemodynamic instability, atrial fibrillation, respiratory dysfunction, and infection. Results Patients treated with MiECC showed significantly lower levels of tumor necrosis factor-α than CECC during and early after extracorporeal circulation (median: MiECC 3.4 pg/mL; CI 2.2–4.5 vs. CECC 4.6 pg/mL; CI 3.4–5.6; p = 0.01). Lower levels of creatine kinase-MB and lactate dehydrogenase suggested less tissue damage. However, we detected no other significant differences in any other markers of inflammation, tissue damage or in any of the clinical outcomes. Conclusions Lower levels of TNF-α after MiECC compared with CECC may reflect reduced inflammatory response, although other biochemical markers of inflammation were comparable. Our results suggest better end-organ protection with MiECC compared with CECC. Clinical parameters related to systemic inflammatory response were comparable in this study. Clinical registration number NCT03216720

No-touch saphenous vein grafts in coronary artery surgery (SWEDEGRAFT) : Rationale and design of a multicenter, prospective, registry-based randomized clinical trial

The SWEDEGRAFT study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03501303) tests the hypothesis that saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) harvested with the “no-touch” technique improves patency of coronary artery bypass grafts compared with the conventional open skeletonized technique. This article describes the rationale and design of the randomized trial and baseline characteristics of the population enrolled during the first 9 months of enrollment. The SWEDEGRAFT study is a prospective, binational multicenter, open-label, registry-based trial in patients undergoing first isolated nonemergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), randomized 1:1 to no-touch or conventional open skeletonized vein harvesting technique, with a planned enrollment of 900 patients. The primary end point is the proportion of patients with graft failure defined as SVGs occluded or stenosed >50% on coronary computed tomography angiography at 2 years after CABG, earlier clinically driven coronary angiography demonstrating an occluded or stenosed >50% vein graft, or death within 2 years. High-quality health registries and coronary computed tomography angiography are used to assess the primary end point. The secondary end points include wound healing in the vein graft sites and the composite outcome of major adverse cardiac events during the first 2 years based on registry data. Demographics of the first 200 patients enrolled in the trial and other CABG patients operated in Sweden during the same time period are comparable when the exclusion criteria are taken into consideration. RCT# NCT0350130