Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40309673›Full record

ArticleJTCVS open2025

Graft patency of no-touch versus conventionally harvested saphenous vein conduits in coronary artery bypass grafting: A frequentist and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Mimi X Deng, Zhenyu Li, Dominique Vervoort, Rebecca N Evan, Stephen E Fremes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JTCVS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The SWEDEGRAFT Saphenous Vein Trial: A Study of No-Touch vs. Nordic Grafts?Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mimi X DengDivision of Cardiac Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Zhenyu LiFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Dominique VervoortDivision of Cardiac Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Rebecca N EvanBristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Stephen E FremesDivision of Cardiac Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: No-touch (NT) saphenous vein harvest is a technique that minimizes intimal injury and has been shown to improve patency. This study aimed to directly compare NT saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) to conventional skeletonized (CON) SVGs through a meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted for randomized controlled trials comparing the angiographic patency of NT-SVG and CON-SVG. The primary outcome was graft occlusion as a proportion of the total grafts assessed. Secondary outcomes were graft occlusion per patient, all-cause mortality, and leg wound complications. A random-effects model using a frequentist approach and Bayesian analysis were performed. Results: A total of 235 studies were retrieved, of which 7 ultimately were chosen for analysis, with a total of 3334 randomized patients and 5798 SVGs. The pooled estimated age was 63.5 and 62.8 years for NT and CON, respectively, with approximately 14% of patients being women. The weighted mean angiographic follow-up was 11.6 months. Relative to CON-SVG, NT-SVG was associated with lower rates of graft occlusion per graft (relative risk [RR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.72; Conclusions: Compared to CON, NT confers significantly better patency and equivalent survival but poorer harvest site healing. The clinical benefit of NT remains uncertain, and further evidence is needed.

Indexed as

cardiac surgerycoronary artery bypass graftinggraft patencyno-touch techniquerandomized clinical trialsaphenous vein

Identifiers

PMID40309673
PMCPMC12039455

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.