Endoscopic Saphenous harvesting with an Open CO2 System (ESOS) trial for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Antonio Campanella, Laura Bergamasco, Luigia Macri, Sofia Asioli, Roger Devotini, Serenella Scipioni, Silvana Barbaro, Pietro Rispoli, Mauro Rinaldi, Antonio Campanella, Laura Bergamasco, Luigia Macri, Sofia Asioli, Roger Devotini, Serenella Scipioni, Silvana Barbaro, Pietro Rispoli, Mauro Rinaldi

Abstract

Background: In coronary artery bypass grafting surgery, arterial conduits are preferred because of more favourable long-term patency and outcome. Anyway the greater saphenous vein continues to be the most commonly used bypass conduit. Minimally invasive endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting is increasingly being investigated in order to reduce the morbidity associated with conventional open vein harvesting, includes postoperative leg wound complications, pain and patient satisfaction. However, to date the short and the long-term benefits of the endoscopic technique remain controversial. This study provides an interesting opportunity to address this gap in the literature.

Methods/design: Endoscopic Saphenous harvesting with an Open CO2 System trial includes two parallel vein harvesting arms in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. It is an interventional, single centre, prospective, randomized, safety/efficacy, cost/effectiveness study, in adult patients with elective planned and first isolated coronary artery disease. A simple size of 100 patients for each arm will be required to achieve 80% statistical power, with a significant level of 0.05, for detecting most of the formulated hypotheses. A six-weeks leg wound complications rate was assumed to be 20% in the conventional arm and less of 4% in the endoscopic arm. Previously quoted studies suggest a first-year vein-graft failure rate of about 20% with an annual occlusion rate of 1% to 2% in the first six years, with practically no difference between the endoscopic and conventional approaches. Similarly, the results on event-free survival rates for the two arms have barely a 2-3% gap. Assuming a 10% drop-out rate and a 5% cross-over rate, the goal is to enrol 230 patients from a single Italian cardiac surgery centre.

Discussion: The goal of this prospective randomized trial is to compare and to test improvement in wound healing, quality of life, safety/efficacy, cost-effectiveness, short and long-term outcomes and vein-graft patency after endoscopic open CO2 harvesting system versus conventional vein harvesting.The expected results are of high clinical relevance and will show the safety/efficacy or non-inferiority of one treatment approach in terms of vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.

Trial registration: www.clinicalTrials.gov NCT01121341.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study design. This figure illustrates the study design.

References

    1. Favaloro RG. Saphenous vein autograft replacement of severe segmental coronary artery occlusion: operative technique. Ann Thorac Surg. 1968;5:334–339. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(10)66351-5.
    1. Shah PJ, Gordon I, Fuller J, Seevanayagam S, Rosalion A, Tatoulis J, Raman JS, Buxton BF. Factors affecting saphenous vein graft patency: clinical and angiographic study in 1402 symptomatic patients operated on between 1997 and 1999. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126(6):1972–1977. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(03)01276-5.
    1. Lumsden AB, Eaves FF III, Ofenloch JC, Jordan WD. Subcutaneous, video-assisted saphenous vein harvest: report of the first 30 cases. Cardiovascular Surgery. 1996;4(6):771–776. doi: 10.1016/S0967-2109(96)00055-5.
    1. Allen KB, Shaar CJ. Endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;64(1):265–266. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(97)00277-4.
    1. Utley JR, Thomason ME, Wallace DJ, Mutch DW, Staton L, Brown V, Wilde CM, Bell MS. Preoperative correlates of impaired wound healing after saphenous vein excision. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1989;98(1):147–149.
    1. DeLaria GA, Hunter JA, Goldin MD, Serry C, Javid H, Najafi H. Leg wound complications associated with coronary revascularization. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1981;81(3):403–407.
    1. Carpino PA, Khabbaz KR, Bojar RM, Rastegar H, Warner KG, Murphy RE, Payne DD. Clinical benefits of endoscopic vein harvesting in patients with risk factors for saphenectomy wound infections undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119(1):69–76.
    1. Allen KB, Cheng D, Cohn W, Connolly M, Edgerton J, Falk V, Martin J, Pharm D, Ohtsuka T, Vitali R. 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(2):51–60.
    1. Cheng D, Allen KB, Cohn W, Connolly M, Edgerton J, Falk V, Martin J, Pharm D, Ohtsuka T, Vitali R. Endoscopic Vascular Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials and Controlled Trials. Innovations (Phila) 2005;1(2):61–74.
    1. Brown EN, Kon ZN, Tran R, Burris NS, Gu J, Laird P, Brazio PS, Kallam S, Schwartz K, Bechtel L, Joshi A, Zhang S, Poston RS. Strategies to reduce intraluminal clot formation in endoscopically harvested saphenous veins. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134(5):1259–1265. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.07.042.
    1. Allen KB, Heimansohn DA, Robison RJ, Schier JJ, Griffith GL, Fitzgerald EB. Influence of endoscopic versus traditional saphenectomy on event-free survival: five year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Heart Surg Forum. 2003;6:E143–E145.
    1. Lopes RD, Hafley GE, Allen KB, Ferguson TB, Peterson ED, Harrington RA, Mehta RH, Gibson M, Mack MJ, Kouchoukos NT, Califf RM, Alexander JH. Endoscopic versus open vein-graft harvesting in coronary-artery bypass surgery. NEJM. 2009;361(3):235–244. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0900708.
    1. Cheng D, Martin J, Pharm D, Ferdinand FD, Puskas JD, Diegeler A, Allen KB. Endoscopic vein-graft harvesting. Balancing the risk and benefits. Innovations (Phila) 2010;5(2):70–73.
    1. Allen KB, Griffith GL, Heimansohn DA, Robison RJ, Matheny RG, Schier JJ, Fitzgerald EB, Shaar CJ. Endoscopic versus traditional saphenous vein harvesting: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66(1):26–31. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(98)00392-0.
    1. Puskas JD, Wright CE, Miller PK, Anderson TE, Gott JP, Brown WM III, Guyton RA. A Randomized Trial of Endoscopic Versus Open Saphenous Vein Harvest in Coronary Bypass Surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68(4):1509–1512. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(99)00952-2.
    1. Bonde P, Graham ANJ, MacGowan SW. Endoscopic Vein Harvest: Advantages and Limitations. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77(6):2076–2082. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2003.11.001.
    1. Davis Z, Jacobs HK, Zhang M, Thomas C, Castellanos Y. Endoscopic vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: techniques and outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;116(2):228–235. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(98)70121-7.
    1. Lai T, Babb Y, Ning Q, Reyes L, Dao T, Lee VV, Mitchell L, Gentry LO, Reul RM, Ott DA. The transition from open to endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting and its clinical impact. The Texas Heart Institute Experience. Tex Heart Inst J. 2006;33:316–20.
    1. Crouch JD, O'Hair DP, Keuler JP, Barragry TP, Werner PH, Kleinman LH. Open Versus Endoscopic Saphenous Vein Harvesting: Wound Complications and Vein Quality. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68(4):1513–1516. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(99)00947-9.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. The CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010;63(8):834–840. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.005.
    1. Griffith GL, Allen KB, Waller BF, Heimansohn DA, Robison RJ, Schier JJ, Shaar CJ. Endoscopic and Traditional Saphenous Vein Harvest: A Histologic Comparison. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69(2):520–523. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(99)01364-8.
    1. Alrawi SJ, Balaya F, Raju R, Cunningham JN Jr, Acinapura AJ. A comparative study of endothelial cell injury during open and endoscopic saphenectomy: an electron microscopic evaluation. Heart Surg Forum. 2001;4:120–127.
    1. Puskas JD, Halkos ME, Balkhy H, Caskey M, Connolly M, Crouch J, Diegeler A, Gummert J, Harringer W, Subramanian V, Sutter F, Matschke K. EPIC TRIAL Investigators. Evaluation of the PAS-Port proximal anastomosis system in coronary artery bypass surgery (the EPIC trial) J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;138(1):125–132. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.02.017.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera