ArticleJTCVS open2026
No-touch versus conventional vein harvesting in coronary bypass surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in JTCVS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The study evaluated whether no-touch saphenous vein harvesting (NTH) improves graft patency compared with conventional harvesting (CH) and whether this translates into clinical benefit in coronary artery bypass grafting. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed during May 2025 to retrieve randomized controlled trials comparing NTH and CH in coronary artery bypass grafting. Primary outcomes included graft occlusion per graft and per patient, and graft failure per patient. Secondary outcomes included all-cause death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, recurrent angina, and leg wound complications. Data were extracted and pooled analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Results: Ten randomized controlled trials with 4251 patients (NTH: 2143, CH: 2108) and 4848 grafts (NTH: 2415, CH: 2433) were included. Weighted mean follow-up was 39.0 months (range, 0.2-192 months). NTH was associated with a lower risk of graft occlusion per graft (risk ratio [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81), per patient (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.84), and graft failure per patient (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.87). Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences in all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.43-1.79), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.34-1.87), repeat revascularization (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.32-1.95), and recurrent angina (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.11-3.33), except for leg wound complications, which were significantly higher with NTH (RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.30-2.43). Conclusions: NTH significantly improves graft patency compared with CH but confers no midterm advantage in major clinical outcomes, with increased leg wound complications. Large-scale studies with extended follow-up are needed to define its clinical influence.
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.