Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2018 Sep;10(Suppl 26):S3292-S3296.
doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.08.127.

No-touch saphenous vein as an important conduit of choice in coronary bypass surgery

Tomislav Kopjar  1 , Michael Richard Dashwood  2 , Mats Dreifaldt  3 , Domingos Ramos de Souza  3
Affiliations
Editorial

No-touch saphenous vein as an important conduit of choice in coronary bypass surgery

Tomislav Kopjar et al. J Thorac Dis. 2018 Sep.
No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Examples of ‘no-touch’ (left) and conventional (right) saphenous vein explants and representative transverse sections stained for collagen. The reduction in vascular damage and preservation of various cells and structures have been proposed to contribute to the superior patency of no-touch saphenous vein grafts [modified with permission from (15)].
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot of comparison: saphenous vein vs. radial artery patency. Data pooling was based on six randomized controlled trials with protocol-driven angiography comparing saphenous vein and radial artery patency. Five out of six trials (RAPCO, RAPS, RSVP, Song et al., and Stand-in-Y) were included in the graft patency analysis by Gaudino et al. (11). Remaining trial (Dreifaldt et al.), published by the Örebro group, compared ‘no-touch’ saphenous vein and radial artery patency (18). Pooled risk ratio effect measure was calculated with a random-effect model using Mantel-Haenszel statistical method. No significant difference in risk of graft failure was observed between saphenous vein and radial artery grafts. CI, confidence interval; M-H: Mantel-Haenszel; RA, radial artery; SV, saphenous vein.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Comment on

  • Radial-Artery or Saphenous-Vein Grafts in Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery.
    Gaudino M, Benedetto U, Fremes S, Biondi-Zoccai G, Sedrakyan A, Puskas JD, Angelini GD, Buxton B, Frati G, Hare DL, Hayward P, Nasso G, Moat N, Peric M, Yoo KJ, Speziale G, Girardi LN, Taggart DP; RADIAL Investigators. Gaudino M, et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 May 31;378(22):2069-2077. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1716026. Epub 2018 Apr 30. N Engl J Med. 2018. PMID: 29708851

References

    1. Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 2018;391:939-48. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30423-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schwann TA, Habib RH, Wallace A, et al. Operative Outcomes of Multiple-Arterial Versus Single-Arterial Coronary Bypass Grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 2018;105:1109-19. 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.10.058 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fitzgibbon GM, Kafka HP, Leach AJ, et al. Coronary bypass graft fate and patient outcome: angiographic follow-up of 5,065 grafts related to survival and reoperation in 1,388 patients during 25 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:616-26. 10.1016/0735-1097(96)00206-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM, et al. Influence of the Internal-Mammary-Artery Graft on 10-Year Survival and Other Cardiac Events. N Engl J Med 1986;314:1-6. 10.1056/NEJM198601023140101 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Taggart DP, Altman DG, Gray AM, et al. Randomized Trial of Bilateral versus Single Internal-Thoracic-Artery Grafts. N Engl J Med 2016;375:2540-9. 10.1056/NEJMoa1610021 - DOI - PubMed