Coronary disease & ACSRandomised controlled trial
No-touch vein grafts in coronary artery bypass surgery: a registry-based randomized clinical trial
- Randomised controlled trial
- registry-based
Authors' conclusion
No-touch vein graft harvesting for CABG was not superior to conventional open harvesting in reducing vein graft failure or clinical events after CABG but increased leg wound complications.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)
- Participants
- 902 patients
- Comparison
- No-touch vs conventional saphenous vein harvesting
- No-touchn = 454
- Conventionaln = 446reference
- Primary endpoint
- Occluded/stenosed >50% vein graft on coronary CT angiography, PCI to a vein graft, or death
- Follow-up
- Mean 3.5 (SD 0.1) years
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Difference
−4.3 percentage points
95% CI −10.1-1.6
P = 0.15
Events by treatment group
No-touch vs Conventional
difference −4.3 percentage points (95% CI −10.1-1.6); P = 0.15
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | No-touch | Conventional | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Death, MI or repeat revascularization · 4.4 (SD 1.3) years | 12.6% | 9.9% | 1.3 (0.87–1.93) | |
| 0.512Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Safety
| Outcome | No-touch | Conventional | difference (percentage points) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leg wound complications · 3 months | 24.7% | 13.8% | 10.9 (5.7–16.1) | |
| −1001020Difference, percentage points (linear scale) |
- Leg wound complications: No-touch n = 433, Conventional n = 427
Remaining leg symptoms · 2 years
- Remaining leg symptoms: 189/381 (49.6%) vs. 91/361 (25.2%)
- difference 24.4 percentage points; 95% CI 17.7-31.1
Original publication
No-touch vein grafts in coronary artery bypass surgery: a registry-based randomized clinical trial. Eur Heart J. Published 19 February 2025. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf018
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it