Litcius/Paper detail

Radial artery harvesting in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery—Endoscopic or open method? A meta-analysis

Tzu-Yen Huang, Ting Huang, Yu‐Ting Cheng, Yao-Chang Wang, Tzu-Ping Chen, Shun-Ying Yin, Chi‐Hsiao Yeh

2020PLoS ONE16 citationsDOIOpen Access PDF

Abstract

We analyzed the clinical outcomes of open radial artery harvesting (OAH) and endoscopic radial artery harvesting (EAH) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We designed this meta-analysis conducted using Pubmed, Medline, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. Articles with comparisons of OAH and EAH undergoing CABG were included. Primary outcomes included the wound infection rate, the wound complication rate, neurological complications of the forearm, in-hospital mortality, long-term survival, and the patency rate. The results of our study included six randomized controlled trials (RCTs), two non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) with matching, and 10 NRCTs. In total, 2919 patients were included in 18 studies, while 1187 (40.7%) and 1732 (59.3%) patients received EAH and OAH, respectively. EAH was associated with a lower incidence of wound infection (RR = 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.14 to 0.60, p = 0.03), and neurological complications over the harvesting site (RR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.62, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality, long-term survival (over one year), and the graft patency rate. According to our analysis, endoscopic radial artery harvesting can improve the outcome of the harvesting site, without affecting the mortality, long-term survival, and graft patency.

Topics & Concepts

MedicineSurgeryCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialArteryConfidence intervalRadial arteryCoronary artery bypass surgeryMeta-analysisInternal medicineCardiac and Coronary Surgery TechniquesAortic Disease and Treatment ApproachesMechanical Circulatory Support Devices