SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Endoscopic versus open vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- OPCAB in the minimally invasive era: impact on wound complications-a comparative study with on-pump CABG.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA common treatment for coronary artery disease is CABG, which often involves the use of saphenous veins or internal mammary arteries as grafts. The selected harvesting technique-open vein harvesting (OVH) or endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH)-is pivotal for successful graft outcomes, significantly influencing patient recovery and long-term graft patency rates. This systematic review aims to analyze and compare these harvesting methods to inform clinical decision-making.
methodsOur systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, following our registered protocol in PROSPERO (identifier CRD42024511815). We included full-text studies, encompassing both RCTs and observational studies, that evaluated the effectiveness of EVH versus OVH for elective and urgent CABG procedures. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception until December 28, 2023. We applied a Fixed Effect Model for the meta-analysis, utilizing RR and SMD alongside the inverse variance method. The I² statistic assessed heterogeneity, supported by sensitivity analyses for result robustness, while funnel plots evaluated publication bias. All statistical analyses were performed using Pythmeta software.
resultsFrom an initial 1,906 records, we removed 841 duplicates and unrelated studies, resulting in 34 studies included in the review (21 RCTs and 13 observational studies). Quality assessment revealed a high risk of bias in 11 of 19 RCTs, with multiple concerns across all studies regarding reported outcomes. The review comprised 7,442 patients, with a majority (53.05%) in the EVH group, and median ages of 64.09 (EVH) and 64.35 (OVH). EVH demonstrated significantly lower leg wound complications, including reduced rates of infections (RR = 0.29 95% CI [0.19, 0.43], p < 0.001 (11 studies) and edema (RR = 0.38 95% CI [0.27, 0.55], p < 0.001). However, graft patency favored OVH at both 6 months (92.9% vs. 80.4%, P = 0.04) and 2 years (90.8% vs. 73.9%, P = 0.01), with EVH showing heightened acute endothelial damage (51% vs. 29%, P < 0.001). Pain levels were substantially lower in the EVH group on postoperative day three, while mortality rates remained comparable.
conclusionThis systematic review indicates that while EVH presents significant advantages for reducing leg wound complications, its efficacy in graft patency appears less favorable than OVH. Further investigation is essential to explore the long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness of these techniques, ensuring optimal practices in vein harvesting for CABG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.