0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Vein Graft Preservation Solutions, Patency, and Outcomes After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Follow-up From the PREVENT IV Randomized Clinical Trial FREE

Ralf E. Harskamp, MD1,2; John H. Alexander, MD, MHS1; Phillip J. Schulte, PhD1; Colleen M. Brophy, MD3; Michael J. Mack, MD4; Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH1; Judson B. Williams, MD, MHS1; C. Michael Gibson, MD, MS5; Robert M. Califf, MD6; Nicholas T. Kouchoukos, MD7; Robert A. Harrington, MD8; T. Bruce Ferguson Jr, MD9; Renato D. Lopes, MD, PhD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Medicine, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
2Heart Center, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
3Division of Vascular Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
4Cardiopulmonary Research Science and Technology Institute, Dallas, Texas
5PERFUSE Angiographic Laboratory, Boston, Massachusetts
6Department of Medicine, Duke Translational Medicine Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
7Heart Center, Missouri Baptist Medical Center, St Louis, Missouri
8Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California
9Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina
JAMA Surg. 2014;149(8):798-805. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2014.87.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  In vitro and animal model data suggest that intraoperative preservation solutions may influence endothelial function and vein graft failure (VGF) after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Clinical studies to validate these findings are lacking.

Objective  To evaluate the effect of vein graft preservation solutions on VGF and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing CABG surgery.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Data from the Project of Ex-Vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV (PREVENT IV) study, a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 3014 patients at 107 US sites from August 1, 2002, through October 22, 2003, were used. Eligibility criteria for the trial included CABG surgery for coronary artery disease with at least 2 planned vein grafts.

Interventions  Preservation of vein grafts in saline, blood, or buffered saline solutions.

Main Outcomes and Measures  One-year angiographic VGF and 5-year rates of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularization.

Results  Most patients had grafts preserved in saline (1339 [44.4%]), followed by blood (971 [32.2%]) and buffered saline (507 [16.8%]). Baseline characteristics were similar among groups. One-year VGF rates were much lower in the buffered saline group than in the saline group (patient-level odds ratio [OR], 0.59 [95% CI, 0.45-0.78; P < .001]; graft-level OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.49-0.79; P < .001]) or the blood group (patient-level OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.46-0.83; P = .001]; graft-level OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48-0.81; P < .001]). Use of buffered saline solution also tended to be associated with a lower 5-year risk for death, myocardial infarction, or subsequent revascularization compared with saline (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.64-1.02; P = .08]) and blood (0.81 [0.63-1.03; P = .09]) solutions.

Conclusions and Relevance  Patients undergoing CABG whose vein grafts were preserved in a buffered saline solution had lower VGF rates and trends toward better long-term clinical outcomes compared with patients whose grafts were preserved in saline- or blood-based solutions.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00042081

Figures in this Article

Despite advances in medical management and surgical techniques, vein graft failure (VGF) remains a common complication after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.1,2 To preserve endothelial integrity after harvesting, the vein is temporarily stored in a preservation solution. Considerable variation exists among surgeons and hospitals in the choice of preservation solution. Preservation solutions range from physiologic saline to autologous blood to solutions that contain ions for pH buffering, antioxidants, high-molecular-weight molecules, and an ionic composition similar to that of intracellular fluid. Although in vitro and animal models have suggested that these vein graft preservation solutions may have important differences, they have not been compared in clinical studies.3 We performed an observational comparative-effectiveness evaluation of various vein graft preservation solutions using data from a large randomized clinical trial of patients undergoing CABG surgery. We described the patterns of use of vein graft preservation solutions in clinical practice. We then compared VGF rates at 1 year and long-term clinical outcomes after CABG surgery among patients whose grafts were treated with various preservation solutions.

Study Population

The study population consisted of participants from the Project of Ex-Vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV (PREVENT IV) trial. The design, primary results, and long-term follow-up data have been published previously.47 In short, PREVENT IV was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ex vivo treatment of vein grafts with the E2F transcription factor decoy edifoligide in patients undergoing CABG surgery. The trial enrolled 3014 patients at 107 US sites from August 1, 2002, through October 22, 2003. Eligibility criteria for the trial included age from 18 to 80 years and first isolated CABG surgery for coronary artery disease with at least 2 planned vein grafts. Exclusion criteria included prior cardiac surgery or planned concomitant valve surgery, nonatherosclerotic causes of coronary artery disease, or life expectancy of less than 5 years. The institutional review boards of participating medical centers approved the PREVENT IV protocol, and all patients gave written informed consent. The primary results of the trial showed no difference in VGF (odds ratio [OR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.80-1.14; P = .66]) and in any of the secondary clinical end points between the treated (edifoligide) and control (placebo) group.

Intraoperative Vein Graft Harvest and Preservation

After harvesting, vein grafts were temporarily stored in a preservation solution, after which the PREVENT IV protocol dictated that veins be placed on a trough and inserted into a fluorinated ethylene polypropylene tube attached to a pressure syringe (a pressure-mediated delivery system [Corgentech Inc]) with the active drug (edifoligide in buffered saline solution) or placebo (buffered saline solution). Drug delivery was facilitated by applying low (6 psi) nondistending pressure to the vein in a sealed tube for 10 minutes. After the vein was treated within the pressure device, vein grafts were removed from the tubing, rinsed, and placed in preservation solution at the discretion of the surgeon until surgical implantation. Other than the administration of the study drug, all drugs, solutions (including those used for initial flushing), and interventions were left to the surgeon’s discretion.

In the present analysis, vein graft preservation solutions were categorized into the following groups by investigators at Duke Clinical Research Institute who were blinded to outcomes data: (1) saline, (2) buffered saline, and (3) blood (eFigure in the Supplement).

Angiographic and Clinical Outcomes

The first 2400 patients enrolled in PREVENT IV were assigned to an angiographic cohort scheduled to return, per protocol, for angiography 12 to 18 months after surgery. Patients in the angiographic cohort who underwent angiography for clinical reasons and had VGF before the programmed angiographic follow-up were exempt from additional angiography. All angiograms were analyzed at the PERFUSE Angiographic Core Laboratory, with all analysts blinded to any clinical or procedural information. We defined VGF as a stenosis of the vein graft diameter of 75% or greater.

Clinical outcomes included 5-year all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization. Clinical outcomes were assessed annually to 5 years through direct mail and telephone contact with the trial participants. For patient-reported events, medical records were collected and events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee using prespecified criteria.4 Five-year follow-up was complete in 95.1% of patients; 2.0% of patients withdrew consent for participation, and 2.9% of patients could not be located.7

Statistical Analysis

Patients were categorized according to the vein graft preservation solution category (saline, buffered saline, blood, or other/unknown solution) used during CABG surgery. Continuous baseline and surgical characteristics were summarized according to the vein graft preservation solution categories using medians and interquartile ranges. We compared characteristics using a Kruskal-Wallis test. Categorical baseline and surgical characteristics, in-hospital care, adverse events through 30 days, and concomitant medications were summarized by vein graft preservation solution as frequencies and percentages and compared using the Pearson χ2 or exact test.

Logistic regression assessed the relationship between vein graft preservation solutions and VGF at the patient and individual graft levels. For the graft-level analysis, we used generalized estimating equation methods to account for correlation among multiple grafts within individuals. Results were adjusted for covariates, including weight, duration of index surgery, use of endoscopic vein graft harvesting, quality of the target artery, use of a composite graft, and use of cardiopulmonary bypass during surgery. For the patient-level analysis, we also adjusted results for the worst target artery quality, any use of composite grafts, and any use of endoscopic vein graft harvesting.

Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate curves and Cox proportional hazards regression assessed the relationship between vein graft preservation solution and the composite outcome of death, MI, or revascularization; the composite outcome of death or MI; and death alone. Adjustment covariates included age, sex, preoperative ejection fraction, history of congestive heart failure, history of diabetes mellitus, baseline creatinine clearance, history of chronic lung disease, history of atrial flutter/fibrillation, MI within 30 days, endoscopic vein graft harvesting, internal mammary artery, worst target artery quality, and MI during the index CABG procedure. For the end points of death and MI and death alone, the model also included preoperative cardiogenic shock and any prior MI. For the composite end points of death or MI and death, MI, or revascularization, duration of cardiopulmonary bypass and the worst graft quality were also included. Linearity and proportional hazards assumptions were tested for all applicable covariates, and appropriate transformations were applied when a significant violation was detected. No violations were applicable to vein graft preservation solutions.

The main analysis included other/unknown preservation solutions as a nuisance level in models; however, results are not specifically reported for this category. Instead, for each analysis, we made an overall comparison across the 3 primary categories of vein graft preservation solution (χ2 test with 2 df) and individual 2-way comparisons. All analyses were performed using commercially available software (SAS, version 9.2; SAS Institute Inc).

Vein Graft Preservation Solutions

A description of the various types and combinations of vein graft preservation solutions for the overall PREVENT IV cohort (3014 patients) and the angiographic cohort is provided in the eTable in the Supplement. Most of the patients had grafts that were preserved in saline solution (1339 [44.4%]), followed by blood (971 [32.2%]) and buffered saline (507 [16.8%]) solutions. In 197 patients, we could not determine whether the grafts were preserved in a saline-, buffered saline–, or blood-based solution. These preservation solutions were classified as other/unknown.

Patient Demographics and Operative Characteristics by Preservation Solution Group

Baseline clinical and operative characteristics are described by vein graft preservation solution for the entire PREVENT IV cohort (Table 1). Patient characteristics among the 3 preservation solution groups were similar. Patients in the buffered saline group more frequently had 3-vessel and/or left main coronary artery disease compared with the other groups. Patients in the buffered saline group also had worse vein graft and target artery quality, more endoscopic graft harvesting, more use of cardiopulmonary bypass, and longer duration of surgery but fewer emergent procedures and less use of composite grafts with multiple targets compared with the other groups.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Baseline and Intraoperative Characteristics Among the Vein Graft Preservation Solution Groupsa
Postoperative Course Up to 30 Days

Table 2 shows the in-hospital care and adverse events through 30 days. Overall, times for receiving mechanical ventilation and stay in the intensive care unit setting were similar among the vein graft preservation solution groups. Early adverse events, including stroke and reoperation for bleeding, were also similar among the groups. Postoperative use of secondary prevention medications, such as aspirin, β-blockers, and statins, tended to be higher in the buffered saline group compared with the saline and blood groups.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  In-Hospital Care and Adverse Events Through 30 Days Among Patients With Various Vein Graft Preservation Solutionsa
VGF at 1-Year Scheduled Angiographic Follow-up

Angiographic follow-up was available for 1828 patients with 4343 vein grafts. As shown in Figure 1, patient- and graft-level rates of VGF were significantly lower among grafts preserved in a buffered saline solution compared with those preserved in a saline solution (patient level, 35.2% vs 46.1%; OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.45-0.78; P < .001]; graft level, 19.3% vs 27.0%; OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.49-0.79; P < .001]). Patient- and graft-level rates of VGF were also significantly lower among grafts preserved in a buffered saline solution compared with those preserved in a blood-based solution (patient level, 35.2% vs 44.0%; OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 95% CI, 0.46-0.83; P = .001]; graft level, 19.3% vs 27.0%; OR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48-0.81; P < .001]). Patient- and graft-level rates of VGF were similar between grafts treated with saline or blood solutions (patient level, 46.1% vs 44.0%; OR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.76-1.20; P = .69]; graft level, 27.0% vs 27.0%; OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.82-1.22; P = .99]).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Unadjusted Vein Graft Failure (VGF) Rates According to Vein Graft Preservation Solutions

A, Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for patient-level VGF. B, Adjusted ORs for graft-level VGF. Patients and grafts are stratified by vein graft preservation solutions for the angiographic cohort.

Graphic Jump Location
Long-term Clinical Follow-up

The Kaplan-Meier event curves and the multivariable adjustment model for the composite of death, MI, and revascularization are displayed in Figure 2 and Table 3, respectively. We found a nonsignificant trend toward lower rates of death, MI, or revascularization in patients who had vein grafts preserved in buffered saline solutions compared with those preserved in saline (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.64-1.02; P = .08]) and blood (0.81 [0.63-1.03; P = .09]) solutions. As shown in Table 3, this trend was not evident for the composite of death or MI or for death alone during the 5-year follow-up period.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Kaplan-Meier Event Curves for Long-term Clinical Outcomes According to Vein Graft Preservation Solutions

A, Composite end point of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization. B, Composite end point of all-cause mortality and MI. C, All-cause mortality. Patients are stratified by vein graft preservation solutions. Numbers indicate surviving numbers of patients at each year of follow-up. HR indicates hazard ratio.

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Adjusted HRs for 5-Year Clinical Events Among Vein Graft Preservation Solution Groups

Coronary artery bypass graft surgery relieves angina and improves survival in selected patients with coronary artery disease. Although CABG surgery has been much studied, many of the individual components of this procedure have not. The principal mechanisms thought to limit the benefits of CABG surgery are progression of atherosclerosis and graft failure. Although the mechanisms of VGF are not completely understood, endothelial damage during vein graft harvesting and implantation is known to be an important cause of acute and intermediate VGF.8,9 Although significant attention has been given to various harvesting techniques to minimize trauma,10 intraoperative graft preservation solutions have not been investigated in recent clinical studies. The lack of evidence is illustrated by a lack of consensus and variation in the use of vein graft preservation solutions. We investigated the association among 3 types of intraoperative vein graft preservation solution and vein graft patency and clinical outcomes after CABG surgery. We found that patients whose vein grafts were stored in a preservation solution that contained buffered saline had better vein graft patency rates and trends toward improved clinical outcomes during a 5-year follow-up. As a negative control, postoperative events that are unlikely to be mediated by graft failure—such as stroke, reoperation for bleeding, mediastinitis, and postoperative atrial fibrillation—were indeed all similar across groups. This similarity suggests that our findings are less likely to be due to confounding factors, such as surgical skill, and more likely due to the choice of vein graft preservation solution.

To our knowledge, the only other similar human in vivo study in patients undergoing CABG surgery was performed 3 decades ago.11 In 1982, Catinella et al11 showed that VGF rates at the 10-day follow-up were significantly higher for grafts preserved in autologous blood compared with a buffered saline solution (20% vs 7%; P < .01). Although the sample size was smaller and a different follow-up interval was chosen, these findings are aligned with the angiographic observations from our analysis.

A number of ex vivo studies have investigated the effect of intraoperative solutions on vein graft endothelial function using saphenous vein graft segments. Although Gundry et al12 showed that storage in a saline solution had deleterious effects on endothelial function compared with preservation in autologous blood, other studies1318 aiming to substantiate these findings have shown conflicting results. Other studies9,15,16,1923 have investigated the effect of storage in various buffered saline solutions on vessel wall tension and endothelial function in discarded vein graft segments and overall have shown improved endothelial function after preservation in a buffered saline storage solution compared with saline- and/or blood-based media.

Although VGF may result from a multitude of factors, the marked differences we found among patients who had grafts treated with buffered solutions compared with saline- and blood-based solutions in 1-year VGF rates suggest that graft preservation solutions are important. Endothelial integrity seems to play a crucial role in the ability of vein grafts to adapt quickly to hemodynamic forces, shear stress, and radial wall stress of a high-pressure, pulsatile arterial system.24 Adaptation of vein grafts with functional endothelium occurs via early lumen dilation followed by subsequent wall thickening and stiffening of the vascular wall. Anything that causes injury to the fragile endothelial layer of vein graft conduits, whether vein graft harvesting, preservation media, excessive manipulation in preparation for bypass, or ischemia and reperfusion injury, results in an inflammatory response within the vessel wall, loss of endothelial functioning, and thereby vasoactive impairment to the response to hemodynamic changes.2530 This endothelial pathway may then result in early VGF, neointimal hyperplasia, and subsequent VGF and potential adverse clinical outcomes.27,31,32

This study was a retrospective, nonrandomized, observational analysis of clinical trial data. Models were developed to adjust for multiple covariates associated with each outcome, and early postoperative events were similar across groups, making confounding less likely. The potential for unmeasured confounding still exists, however, especially because covariates associated with the decision to use a particular graft preservation solution may have been provider based and not collected in this study. Information on (cardiac) cause of death was not available. The use of a pressure-mediated delivery system was mandated per protocol and might affect the generalizability of our results. However, because this device was used in all patients, it is unlikely to have affected the relationship between preservation solution and outcome. Total duration of exposure to the storage solution and temperature of the solution were not documented, nor were differences in distension pressure during flushing, which may have affected vein graft patency. The potential effect of additives to preservation solutions could not be explored because of sample size limitations. Finally, the PREVENT IV trial enrolled patients during 2002 and 2003, and treatment patterns, including preferences for and methods of vein graft preservation, may have evolved over time.

Patients undergoing CABG surgery whose vein grafts were preserved intraoperatively in a buffered saline solution had lower rates of VGF and a trend toward improved clinical outcomes compared with patients whose grafts were preserved in blood- or saline-based solutions. These hypothesis-generating findings may have important implications for the care of patients undergoing CABG surgery and should be further investigated in adequately sized randomized clinical studies.

Accepted for Publication: October 29, 2013.

Corresponding Author: Renato D. Lopes, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, 2400 Pratt St, Room 0311, PO Box 3850, Terrace Level, Durham, NC 27705 (renato.lopes@duke.edu).

Published Online: June 18, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2014.87.

Author Contributions: Dr Lopes had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Harskamp, Alexander, Lopes.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Harskamp, Schulte, Williams.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Schulte.

Obtained funding: Lopes.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Harskamp, Williams, Schulte.

Study supervision: Alexander, Brophy, Mack, Peterson, Gibson, Kouchoukos, Harrington, Lopes.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Alexander has received grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, and Regado Biosciences; travel support from Bristol-Myers Squibb; and consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, PolyMedix, Regado Biosciences, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr Brophy has received grant 2RO1 HL070715 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to study prevention of vein graft spasm and has a financial interest in Vasoprep Inc. Drs Alexander, Williams, and Ferguson are supported in part by grant U01-HL088953 from the NIH Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network. Dr Peterson has served as principal investigator of the Data Analytic Center for the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines; has received research grants from Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals; and has served as a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Johnson & Johnson, Medscape, Merck, Novartis, Ortho-McNeil-Janssen, Pfizer, Westat, the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, WebMD, and United Healthcare. Dr Califf reports receiving research funding from the Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation and Novartis and consulting or other services (including continuing medical education [CME] or other non-CME) from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, CV Sight, LLC, DSI-Lilly, Gambro, Heart.org, Janssen R&D, LLC, Kowa, and Novartis. Dr Harrington has received research funding from Abbott Laboratories, Abiomed, Allied Clinical Management Cardiovascular, and Aastrom Biosciences. Dr Lopes has served as a consultant for and is a member of the boards of Boehringer-Ingelheim and Bristol-Myers Squibb and has received grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Daiichi Sankyo. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported in part by Somahlution, Inc.

Role of the Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contribution: Peter Hoffmann, BA, Duke Clinical Research Institute, provided excellent editorial assistance. He did not receive compensation from the sponsor for this role.

Correction: This article was corrected on August 6, 2014, to fix the subtitle.

Deb  S, Cohen  EA, Singh  SK, Une  D, Laupacis  A, Fremes  SE; RAPS Investigators.  Radial artery and saphenous vein patency more than 5 years after coronary artery bypass surgery: results from RAPS (Radial Artery Patency Study). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(1):28-35.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Harskamp  RE, Lopes  RD, Baisden  CE, de Winter  RJ, Alexander  JH.  Saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass surgery: pathophysiology, management, and future directions. Ann Surg. 2013;257(5):824-833.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tsakok  M, Montgomery-Taylor  S, Tsakok  T.  Storage of saphenous vein grafts prior to coronary artery bypass grafting: is autologous whole blood more effective than saline in preserving graft function? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012;15(4):720-725.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Alexander  JH, Hafley  G, Harrington  RA,  et al; PREVENT IV Investigators.  Efficacy and safety of edifoligide, an E2F transcription factor decoy, for prevention of vein graft failure following coronary artery bypass graft surgery: PREVENT IV: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;294(19):2446-2454.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Alexander  JH, Ferguson  TB  Jr, Joseph  DM,  et al; PREVENT IV Investigators.  The Project of Ex-vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV (PREVENT IV) trial: study rationale, design, and baseline patient characteristics. Am Heart J. 2005;150(4):643-649.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lopes  RD, Mehta  RH, Hafley  GE,  et al; Project of Ex Vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV (PREVENT IV) Investigators.  Relationship between vein graft failure and subsequent clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation. 2012;125(6):749-756.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lopes  RD, Williams  JB, Mehta  RH,  et al.  Edifoligide and long-term outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting: Project of Ex-vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV (PREVENT IV) 5-year results. Am Heart J.2012;164(3):379-386.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2012.05.019.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lamm  P, Juchem  G, Milz  S, Reichart  B.  Continuous graft perfusion: optimizing the quality of saphenous vein grafts. Heart Surg Forum. 2002;5(suppl 4):S355-S361.
PubMed
Wilbring  M, Tugtekin  SM, Zatschler  B,  et al.  Even short-time storage in physiological saline solution impairs endothelial vascular function of saphenous vein grafts. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40(4):811-815.
PubMed
Souza  DS, Dashwood  MR, Tsui  JC,  et al.  Improved patency in vein grafts harvested with surrounding tissue: results of a randomized study using three harvesting techniques. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73(4):1189-1195.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Catinella  FP, Cunningham  JN  Jr, Srungaram  RK,  et al.  The factors influencing early patency of coronary artery bypass vein grafts: correlation of angiographic and ultrastructural findings. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1982;83(5):686-700.
PubMed
Gundry  SR, Jones  M, Ishihara  T, Ferrans  VJ.  Optimal preparation techniques for human saphenous vein grafts. Surgery. 1980;88(6):785-794.
PubMed
Bush  HL  Jr, Jakubowski  JA, Curl  GR, Deykin  D, Nabseth  DC.  The natural history of endothelial structure and function in arterialized vein grafts. J Vasc Surg. 1986;3(2):204-215.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lawrie  GM, Weilbacher  DE, Henry  PD.  Endothelium-dependent relaxation in human saphenous vein grafts: effects of preparation and clinicopathologic correlations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1990;100(4):612-620.
PubMed
Chester  AH, O’Neil  GS, Tadjakarimi  S, Borland  JA, Yacoub  MH.  Effect of peri-operative storage solution on the vascular reactivity of the human saphenous vein. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1993;7(8):399-404.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Santoli  E, Di Mattia  D, Boldorini  R, Mingoli  A, Tosoni  A, Santoli  C.  University of Wisconsin solution and human saphenous vein graft preservation: preliminary anatomic report. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1993;7(10):548-552.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Weiss  DR, Juchem  G, Kemkes  BM, Gansera  B, Nees  S.  Extensive deendothelialization and thrombogenicity in routinely prepared vein grafts for coronary bypass operations: facts and remedy. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2009;2(2):95-113.
PubMed
Dumanski  A, Sopel  M, Pelczar  M, Szłapka  M, Kustrzycki  W, Zabel  M.  Influence of pressure on the endothelium of the saphenous vein coronary artery bypass graft. In Vivo. 2007;21(5):785-789.
PubMed
Cavallari  N, Abebe  W, Mingoli  A,  et al.  Functional and morphological evaluation of canine veins following preservation in different storage media. J Surg Res. 1997;68(2):106-115.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sanchez  AM, Wooldridge  TA, Boerboom  LE, Olinger  GN, Almassi  GH, Rusch  NJ.  Comparison of saphenous vein graft relaxation between Plasma-Lyte solution and normal saline solution. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;107(6):1445-1453.
PubMed
Hickethier  T, Dämmrich  J, Silber  RE, Finster  S, Elert  O.  Ultrastructural investigations for reducing endothelial cell damage of vein grafts during CABG-operation and practical consequences. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1999;40(1):71-76.
PubMed
Thatte  HS, Biswas  KS, Najjar  SF,  et al.  Multi-photon microscopic evaluation of saphenous vein endothelium and its preservation with a new solution, GALA. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75(4):1145-1152.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wilbring  M, Tugtekin  SM, Zatschler  B,  et al.  Preservation of endothelial vascular function of saphenous vein grafts after long-time storage with a recently developed potassium-chloride and N-acetylhistidine enriched storage solution. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;61(8):656-662.
PubMed
Owens  CD, Wake  N, Conte  MS, Gerhard-Herman  M, Beckman  JA.  In vivo human lower extremity saphenous vein bypass grafts manifest flow mediated vasodilation. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(5):1063-1070.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cox  JL, Chiasson  DA, Gotlieb  AI.  Stranger in a strange land: the pathogenesis of saphenous vein graft stenosis with emphasis on structural and functional differences between veins and arteries. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1991;34(1):45-68.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ehsan  A, Mann  MJ, Dell’Acqua  G, Tamura  K, Braun-Dullaeus  R, Dzau  VJ.  Endothelial healing in vein grafts: proliferative burst unimpaired by genetic therapy of neointimal disease. Circulation. 2002;105(14):1686-1692.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tsui  JC, Souza  DS, Filbey  D, Karlsson  MG, Dashwood  MR.  Localization of nitric oxide synthase in saphenous vein grafts harvested with a novel “no-touch” technique: potential role of nitric oxide contribution to improved early graft patency rates. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35(2):356-362.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dashwood  MR, Savage  K, Dooley  A, Shi-Wen  X, Abraham  DJ, Souza  DS.  Effect of vein graft harvesting on endothelial nitric oxide synthase and nitric oxide production. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80(3):939-944.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chung  AW, Rauniyar  P, Luo  H, Hsiang  YN, van Breemen  C, Okon  EB.  Pharmacologic relaxation of vein grafts is beneficial compared with pressure distention caused by upregulation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase and nitric oxide production. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132(4):925-932.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hinokiyama  K, Valen  G, Tokuno  S, Vedin  JB, Vaage  J.  Vein graft harvesting induces inflammation and impairs vessel reactivity. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82(4):1458-1464.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Davies  MG, Klyachkin  ML, Dalen  H, Massey  MF, Svendsen  E, Hagen  PO.  The integrity of experimental vein graft endothelium: implications on the etiology of early graft failure. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1993;7(2):156-165.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sasaki  Y, Suehiro  S, Becker  AE, Kinoshita  H, Ueda  M.  Role of endothelial cell denudation and smooth muscle cell dedifferentiation in neointimal formation of human vein grafts after coronary artery bypass grafting: therapeutic implications. Heart. 2000;83(1):69-75.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Unadjusted Vein Graft Failure (VGF) Rates According to Vein Graft Preservation Solutions

A, Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for patient-level VGF. B, Adjusted ORs for graft-level VGF. Patients and grafts are stratified by vein graft preservation solutions for the angiographic cohort.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Kaplan-Meier Event Curves for Long-term Clinical Outcomes According to Vein Graft Preservation Solutions

A, Composite end point of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and revascularization. B, Composite end point of all-cause mortality and MI. C, All-cause mortality. Patients are stratified by vein graft preservation solutions. Numbers indicate surviving numbers of patients at each year of follow-up. HR indicates hazard ratio.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Baseline and Intraoperative Characteristics Among the Vein Graft Preservation Solution Groupsa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  In-Hospital Care and Adverse Events Through 30 Days Among Patients With Various Vein Graft Preservation Solutionsa
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Adjusted HRs for 5-Year Clinical Events Among Vein Graft Preservation Solution Groups

References

Deb  S, Cohen  EA, Singh  SK, Une  D, Laupacis  A, Fremes  SE; RAPS Investigators.  Radial artery and saphenous vein patency more than 5 years after coronary artery bypass surgery: results from RAPS (Radial Artery Patency Study). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(1):28-35.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Harskamp  RE, Lopes  RD, Baisden  CE, de Winter  RJ, Alexander  JH.  Saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass surgery: pathophysiology, management, and future directions. Ann Surg. 2013;257(5):824-833.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tsakok  M, Montgomery-Taylor  S, Tsakok  T.  Storage of saphenous vein grafts prior to coronary artery bypass grafting: is autologous whole blood more effective than saline in preserving graft function? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012;15(4):720-725.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Alexander  JH, Hafley  G, Harrington  RA,  et al; PREVENT IV Investigators.  Efficacy and safety of edifoligide, an E2F transcription factor decoy, for prevention of vein graft failure following coronary artery bypass graft surgery: PREVENT IV: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;294(19):2446-2454.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Alexander  JH, Ferguson  TB  Jr, Joseph  DM,  et al; PREVENT IV Investigators.  The Project of Ex-vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV (PREVENT IV) trial: study rationale, design, and baseline patient characteristics. Am Heart J. 2005;150(4):643-649.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lopes  RD, Mehta  RH, Hafley  GE,  et al; Project of Ex Vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV (PREVENT IV) Investigators.  Relationship between vein graft failure and subsequent clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation. 2012;125(6):749-756.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lopes  RD, Williams  JB, Mehta  RH,  et al.  Edifoligide and long-term outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting: Project of Ex-vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV (PREVENT IV) 5-year results. Am Heart J.2012;164(3):379-386.e1. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2012.05.019.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lamm  P, Juchem  G, Milz  S, Reichart  B.  Continuous graft perfusion: optimizing the quality of saphenous vein grafts. Heart Surg Forum. 2002;5(suppl 4):S355-S361.
PubMed
Wilbring  M, Tugtekin  SM, Zatschler  B,  et al.  Even short-time storage in physiological saline solution impairs endothelial vascular function of saphenous vein grafts. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40(4):811-815.
PubMed
Souza  DS, Dashwood  MR, Tsui  JC,  et al.  Improved patency in vein grafts harvested with surrounding tissue: results of a randomized study using three harvesting techniques. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73(4):1189-1195.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Catinella  FP, Cunningham  JN  Jr, Srungaram  RK,  et al.  The factors influencing early patency of coronary artery bypass vein grafts: correlation of angiographic and ultrastructural findings. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1982;83(5):686-700.
PubMed
Gundry  SR, Jones  M, Ishihara  T, Ferrans  VJ.  Optimal preparation techniques for human saphenous vein grafts. Surgery. 1980;88(6):785-794.
PubMed
Bush  HL  Jr, Jakubowski  JA, Curl  GR, Deykin  D, Nabseth  DC.  The natural history of endothelial structure and function in arterialized vein grafts. J Vasc Surg. 1986;3(2):204-215.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Lawrie  GM, Weilbacher  DE, Henry  PD.  Endothelium-dependent relaxation in human saphenous vein grafts: effects of preparation and clinicopathologic correlations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1990;100(4):612-620.
PubMed
Chester  AH, O’Neil  GS, Tadjakarimi  S, Borland  JA, Yacoub  MH.  Effect of peri-operative storage solution on the vascular reactivity of the human saphenous vein. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1993;7(8):399-404.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Santoli  E, Di Mattia  D, Boldorini  R, Mingoli  A, Tosoni  A, Santoli  C.  University of Wisconsin solution and human saphenous vein graft preservation: preliminary anatomic report. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1993;7(10):548-552.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Weiss  DR, Juchem  G, Kemkes  BM, Gansera  B, Nees  S.  Extensive deendothelialization and thrombogenicity in routinely prepared vein grafts for coronary bypass operations: facts and remedy. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2009;2(2):95-113.
PubMed
Dumanski  A, Sopel  M, Pelczar  M, Szłapka  M, Kustrzycki  W, Zabel  M.  Influence of pressure on the endothelium of the saphenous vein coronary artery bypass graft. In Vivo. 2007;21(5):785-789.
PubMed
Cavallari  N, Abebe  W, Mingoli  A,  et al.  Functional and morphological evaluation of canine veins following preservation in different storage media. J Surg Res. 1997;68(2):106-115.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sanchez  AM, Wooldridge  TA, Boerboom  LE, Olinger  GN, Almassi  GH, Rusch  NJ.  Comparison of saphenous vein graft relaxation between Plasma-Lyte solution and normal saline solution. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;107(6):1445-1453.
PubMed
Hickethier  T, Dämmrich  J, Silber  RE, Finster  S, Elert  O.  Ultrastructural investigations for reducing endothelial cell damage of vein grafts during CABG-operation and practical consequences. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1999;40(1):71-76.
PubMed
Thatte  HS, Biswas  KS, Najjar  SF,  et al.  Multi-photon microscopic evaluation of saphenous vein endothelium and its preservation with a new solution, GALA. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75(4):1145-1152.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wilbring  M, Tugtekin  SM, Zatschler  B,  et al.  Preservation of endothelial vascular function of saphenous vein grafts after long-time storage with a recently developed potassium-chloride and N-acetylhistidine enriched storage solution. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;61(8):656-662.
PubMed
Owens  CD, Wake  N, Conte  MS, Gerhard-Herman  M, Beckman  JA.  In vivo human lower extremity saphenous vein bypass grafts manifest flow mediated vasodilation. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(5):1063-1070.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cox  JL, Chiasson  DA, Gotlieb  AI.  Stranger in a strange land: the pathogenesis of saphenous vein graft stenosis with emphasis on structural and functional differences between veins and arteries. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1991;34(1):45-68.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ehsan  A, Mann  MJ, Dell’Acqua  G, Tamura  K, Braun-Dullaeus  R, Dzau  VJ.  Endothelial healing in vein grafts: proliferative burst unimpaired by genetic therapy of neointimal disease. Circulation. 2002;105(14):1686-1692.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tsui  JC, Souza  DS, Filbey  D, Karlsson  MG, Dashwood  MR.  Localization of nitric oxide synthase in saphenous vein grafts harvested with a novel “no-touch” technique: potential role of nitric oxide contribution to improved early graft patency rates. J Vasc Surg. 2002;35(2):356-362.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Dashwood  MR, Savage  K, Dooley  A, Shi-Wen  X, Abraham  DJ, Souza  DS.  Effect of vein graft harvesting on endothelial nitric oxide synthase and nitric oxide production. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80(3):939-944.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chung  AW, Rauniyar  P, Luo  H, Hsiang  YN, van Breemen  C, Okon  EB.  Pharmacologic relaxation of vein grafts is beneficial compared with pressure distention caused by upregulation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase and nitric oxide production. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132(4):925-932.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hinokiyama  K, Valen  G, Tokuno  S, Vedin  JB, Vaage  J.  Vein graft harvesting induces inflammation and impairs vessel reactivity. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82(4):1458-1464.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Davies  MG, Klyachkin  ML, Dalen  H, Massey  MF, Svendsen  E, Hagen  PO.  The integrity of experimental vein graft endothelium: implications on the etiology of early graft failure. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1993;7(2):156-165.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sasaki  Y, Suehiro  S, Becker  AE, Kinoshita  H, Ueda  M.  Role of endothelial cell denudation and smooth muscle cell dedifferentiation in neointimal formation of human vein grafts after coronary artery bypass grafting: therapeutic implications. Heart. 2000;83(1):69-75.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Supplement.

eFigure. Categorization of vein grafts according to preservation solution

eTable. Vein graft preservation solutions (including additives) in the overall PREVENT IV cohort and the angiographic cohort

Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

1,404 Views
7 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
An Illustration of Bias and Random Error

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice, 3rd ed
How to Use an Article About Quality Improvement