Abstract
Objective
This purpose of this consensus statement was to compare endoscopic vascular graft harvesting (EVH) with conventional open vascular harvesting (OVH) in adults undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery and to determine which resulted in improved clinical and resource outcomes.
Methods
Before the consensus conference, the consensus panel reviewed the best available evidence, whereby systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized trials were considered in descending order of importance. Evidence-based statements were created, and consensus processes were used to determine the ensuing statements. The AHA/ACC system was used to label the level of evidence and class of recommendation.
Results
The consensus panel agreed upon the following statements:
1. EVH is recommended to reduce wound related complications when compared with OVH (Class I, Level A).
2. Based on quality of conduit harvested, either endoscopic or open vein harvest technique may be used (Class IIa; Level B).
3. Based on major adverse cardiac events and angiographic patency at 6 months, either endoscopic or open vein harvest technique may be used (Class IIa; Level A).
4. EVH is recommended for vein harvesting to improve patient satisfaction and postoperative pain when compared with OVH in CABG surgery (Class I, Level A).
5. EVH is recommended for vein harvesting to reduce postoperative length of stay and outpatient wound management resources (Class I, Level A).
Conclusions
Given these evidence-based statements, the consensus panel stated that EVH should be the standard of care for patients who require saphenous vein grafts for coronary revascularization (Class I, Level B). Future research should address long-term safety, cost-effectiveness, and endoarterial harvest.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.