Endoscopic vein harvest does not negatively affect patency of great saphenous vein lower extremity bypass

Khan, Sikandar Z.; Rivero, Mariel; McCraith, Brian; Harris, Linda M.; Dryjski, Maciej L.; Dosluoglu, Hasan H.

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2016.01.032

Cited by 20 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… 10 20 Similar outcomes have been reported when the LSV had been harvested by EVH for lower limb vascular procedures. 21 In the current study, only a small percentage of patients post-CABG had either an ischaemic event or evidence of blocked grafts on angiography: 2.4% (1/41) for EVH and 2.8% (1/36) for OVH.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event and patients’ quality of life after endoscopic vein harvesting as compared with open vein harvest (MAQEH): a pilot study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis is a prospective, comparative, pilot and follow-up (2-year postoperatively) study in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery where the long saphenous vein was harvested either by the endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) technique or open vein harvest (OVH) technique. Quality of life (QOL) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) were assessed.MethodsAlive patients who were initially part of a pilot study when EVH was introduced in our institution were included (n=48 EVH, n=49 OVH). Patients were sent a QOL questionnaire (SF12v2; 12-item medical outcomes study short form health survey version 2.0), and their cardiologist and general practitioner were contacted to assess MACCE.ResultsMedian follow-up was 32 and 33 months, respectively. Three patients died (2 EVH, 1 OVH). Of the remaining 97 patients who were sent a questionnaire, 76% patients returned the form. More patients from the EVH group returned the QOL questionnaire (82% vs 71%). Time taken to return to normal daily activities was much shorter in EVH (median 6 (2–30) weeks) compared with OVH (median 9 (2–50) weeks) (P<0.05). QOL questionnaire revealed significant difference in physical score at follow-up: 45.3 (10.2) for EVH group and 40.7 (11.0) for OVH group (P<0.05). There was no difference in mental scores (46.9 (10.5) vs 49.2 (9.1), P=0.4). There were no significant differences in MACCEs including death between the two groups (12.2% vs 13.9%, P=0.5).ConclusionEVH patients returned to normal daily activities faster than OVH patients and experienced better physical QOL even after 2 years postoperatively with no increase in MACCE during follow-up.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event and patients’ quality of life after endoscopic vein harvesting as compared with open vein harvest (MAQEH): a pilot study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent literature, including our own experience, examining the use of EVH in lower extremity bypass reports favorable wound complication rates and decreased length of stay, readmission rates, and cost compared with open vein harvest. 8,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] These benefits, however, have come at the cost of decreased primary patency rates with EVH compared with OVH. 23,24 A possible mechanism for the decreased patency rates with EVH is increased vein handling leading to injury.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Experienced operators achieve superior patency and wound complication rates with endoscopic great saphenous vein harvest compared with open harvest in lower extremity bypasses

Kronick

Liem

Jung

et al. 2019

Journal of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, recent data, including results from Teixeira et al 13 examining the VQI database during a 10-year period with >5000 patients, showed no association between vein harvest technique and the development of surgical site infection. 26 However, VQI data are limited to in-hospital events, and late wound infections may not be captured completely in this data set. Regardless, studies have frequently demonstrated lower rates of infection with EVH, including early data, 27 leading to its institution by groups for high-risk patients.…”

Section: Journal Of Vascular Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic versus open great saphenous vein harvesting for femoral to popliteal artery bypass

Mirza

Stauffer

Fleming

et al. 2018

Journal of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Endoscopic vein harvest does not negatively affect patency of great saphenous vein lower extremity bypass

Abstract: In experienced hands, EVH is associated with a significant decrease in wound complications with similar graft patency, reintervention rates, and limb salvage.

Cited by 20 publications

References 45 publications

Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event and patients’ quality of life after endoscopic vein harvesting as compared with open vein harvest (MAQEH): a pilot study

Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event and patients’ quality of life after endoscopic vein harvesting as compared with open vein harvest (MAQEH): a pilot study

Experienced operators achieve superior patency and wound complication rates with endoscopic great saphenous vein harvest compared with open harvest in lower extremity bypasses

Endoscopic versus open great saphenous vein harvesting for femoral to popliteal artery bypass

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About