Coronary disease & ACSSecondary analysis
No-Touch vs Conventional Vein Grafts in Coronary Surgery
- Secondary analysis of the SWEDEGRAFT randomised trial
- prespecified extended follow-up
- multicentre
- binational
- Median (IQR) follow-up 6.46 (5.92-6.86) years
Outcomes ascertained through national population-based registries
Authors' conclusion
In this 7-year follow-up of the SWEDEGRAFT randomized clinical trial, no-touch saphenous vein harvesting was not shown to significantly reduce the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization through 7 years of follow-up.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing primary, nonemergent, isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at 8 centres in Sweden and 1 in Denmark900 in modified ITT
- Participants
- 902 patients
- Comparison
- No-touch vs conventional saphenous vein harvesting
- No-touchn = 454
- Conventionaln = 446reference
- Primary endpoint
- Composite of:
- All-cause death
- MI
- Repeat revascularization
- Follow-up
- 7 years
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Death from any cause, MI or repeat revascularization
Hazard ratio
0.98
95% CI 0.73–1.31
P = 0.90
Events by treatment group
No-touch vs Conventional
HR 0.98 (95% CI 0.73–1.31); P = 0.90
- Adjusted 7-year risk difference
- −0.8% (95% CI, −6.6% to 4.6%)
Secondary outcomes
Individual components of the primary composite
- Death, HR
- 0.84 (95% CI, 0.53-1.35)
- MI, HR
- 0.74 (95% CI, 0.44-1.24)
- Repeat revascularization, HR
- 1.07 (95% CI, 0.73-1.56)
- Did not differ significantly between groups
Prespecified subgroups
- No heterogeneity in treatment effect
Original publication
No-Touch vs Conventional Vein Grafts in Coronary Surgery. JAMA Cardiol. Published 30 September 2026. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2026.4222
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it