Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Complications after Endoscopic or Surgical Saphenous Vein Harvesting
30 August 2018
12 February 2019
04 April 2019 (online)
Background Endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting (EVH) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been developed to reduce leg wound problems. This study was undertaken to evaluate postoperative complications and patient's subjective satisfaction comparing EVH and surgical vein harvesting (SVH).
Methods From January to December 2017, patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery (CABG, CABG + Valve repair or replacement) underwent saphenous vein graft harvesting either by EVH (n = 136) or SVH (n = 104). Clinical follow-up was scheduled for day 7 and > 45 days after surgery. Primary end points were divided into two subgroups. The first one included postoperative extent of subjective pain and satisfaction with the cosmetic results described by the patients themselves, while the second subgroup included objective postoperative complications including wound healing disturbances, hematoma, and neuropathy. Secondary end point was length of hospital stay.
Results At 7 days follow-up, EVH patients were more satisfied with the cosmetic results than those of the SVH group (p < 0.001) and expressed a significant tendency toward lower subjective pain compared with the SVH patients (p < 0.001), exhibited significantly lower cellulitis (p-0.002), neuropathy (p-0.005), and superficial wound healing disturbance (p-0.007). During further follow-up at > 45 days, patients with EVH were still more satisfied with the cosmetic results (p < 0.001) and expressed lower subjective pain (p < 0.001), while the other objective wound parameters did not show significant differences between both groups. Mean length of hospital stay of EVH patients was 0.7 days less compared with SVH patients.
Conclusions Our findings demonstrate the noninferiority of EVH in the short term and in the early medium term.
Keywordsendoscopic saphenous vein harvesting - patient satisfaction - clinical complications - noninferiority
Parts of the data were presented at the DGTHG annual meeting in Leipzig in 2018.
- 1 Beckmann A, Funkat A-K, Lewandowski J. , et al. German Heart Surgery Report 2016: The Annual Updated Registry of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017 ; 65: 505–518. Available at https://www.dgthg.de/sites/default/files/GermanHeartSurgeryReport2016.pdf . Accessed on August 30, 2018
- 2 Cardiovascular P, Eapci I, France JC. , et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2014 ; 35: 2541–2619. Available at https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu278 . Accessed on August 30, 2018
- 3 Allen K, Cheng D, Cohn W. , et al. Endoscopic Vascular Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: A Consensus Statement of the International Society of Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) 2005. Innovations (Phila) 2005 ; 1: 51–60. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22436545 . Accessed on August 30, 2018
- 4 Markar SR, Kutty R, Edmonds L, Sadat U, Nair S. A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus traditional open vein harvest technique for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2010 ; 10: 266–270 . Available at http://academic.oup.com/icvts/article/10/2/266/645320/A-metaanalysis-of-minimally-invasive-versus . Accessed on August 30, 2018
- 5 Ferdinand FD, MacDonald JK, Balkhy HH. , et al. Endoscopic Conduit Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery. Innov Technol Tech Cardiothorac Vasc Surg 2017 ; 12: 301–319 . Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29028651%0Ahttp://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=01243895-201709000-00001 . Accessed on August 30, 2018
- 6 Krishnamoorthy B, Critchley WR, Venkateswaran RV. , et al. A comprehensive review on learning curve associated problems in endoscopic vein harvesting and the requirement for a standardised training programme. J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 11: 45
- 7 Downie WW, Leatham PA, Rhind VM, Wright V, Branco JA, Anderson JA. Studies with pain rating scales. Ann Rheum Dis 1978; 37 (04) 378-381
- 8 Kirmani BH, Barnard JB, Mourad F, Blakeman N, Chetcuti K, Zacharias J. Mid-term outcomes for endoscopic versus open vein harvest: a case control study. J Cardiothorac Surg 2010; 5: 44
- 9 Sastry P, Rivinius R, Harvey R. , et al. The influence of endoscopic vein harvesting on outcomes after coronary bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of 267,525 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013; 44 (06) 980-989
- 10 Deppe AC, Liakopoulos OJ, Choi YH. , et al. Endoscopic vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review with meta-analysis of 27,789 patients. J Surg Res 2013; 180 (01) 114-124
- 11 Athanasiou T, Aziz O, Skapinakis P. , et al. Leg wound infection after coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus conventional vein harvesting. Ann Thorac Surg 2003; 76 (06) 2141-2146
- 12 Desai P, Kiani S, Thiruvanthan N. , et al. Impact of the learning curve for endoscopic vein harvest on conduit quality and early graft patency. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91 (05) 1385-1391 , discussion 1391–1392
- 13 Rao C, Aziz O, Deeba S. , et al. Is minimally invasive harvesting of the great saphenous vein for coronary artery bypass surgery a cost-effective technique?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 135 (04) 809-815
- 14 García-Altés A, Peiró S. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness evidence of endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting: is it efficient?. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011; 41 (06) 831-836