Study of Endoscopic Versus Open Harvest of the Radial Artery in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
The purpose of this study is to compare the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive endoscopic harvest of the radial artery to the conventional open method of radial artery harvest in coronary artery bypass surgery. The researchers hypothesize that the radial artery can be safely, efficiently, and routinely harvested using a minimally invasive endoscopic technique. Endoscopic minimally invasive harvesting of the radial artery will reduce the postoperative morbidity due to pain, wound infection, and neurological complications and improve cosmetic results.
Coronary Artery Disease
Procedure: Endoscopic Radial Artery Harvest
|Study Design:||Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Open Label
Primary Purpose: Treatment
|Official Title:||A Prospective Randomized Trial of Endoscopic Versus Conventional Harvesting of the Radial Artery in Coronary Artery Bypass|
- The primary outcome event will be the rate of forearm wound infection at 6 weeks. [ Time Frame: 6 weeks ]
- Wound pain [ Time Frame: 6 weeks ]
- Neurological complications [ Time Frame: 6 weeks ]
- Patient satisfaction [ Time Frame: 6 weeks ]
- Length of hospitalization [ Time Frame: will vary with patient lenght of stay ]
- Histological integrity of the harvested radial artery [ Time Frame: during OR ]
|Study Start Date:||April 2005|
|Study Completion Date:||August 2007|
Many surgical disciplines have been quick to adopt minimally invasive techniques because of decreased complications and shorter recovery times. As we enter the fifth decade of coronary artery bypass grafting surgery more attempts are being made to perform the operation less invasively. Harvesting of the saphenous vein (a large superficial vein in the leg which is routinely used in bypass surgery) using a telescope (camera), has been shown to be superior to harvesting the vein through a large open incision. At our institution, this vein mentioned above, is routinely harvested using less invasive techniques with a camera. This has been shown to result in less infection.
In the early 1990's, the radial artery was reintroduced into bypass surgery to increase the number of available alternative bypass grafts. Long-term results of the radial artery (8-9 years) have shown that 88-91% of the radial arteries harvested remain open thereby allowing the flow of blood. This is significantly better than the 10-year rates of the saphenous vein of 53-67%. Therefore, the radial artery has become more popular as a bypass graft.
Conventionally, the radial artery is harvested by making a long vertical incision extending from the wrist to the elbow. The radial artery is then dissected under direct vision within this large open incision. Complications from the open harvest of the radial artery include infection, neurological complications, possible decrease blood flow to the hand, and poor wound healing or scarring.
Recently, with the development of endoscopic harvesting systems, the radial artery can be harvested using a telescope (camera) and very small incisions. Thus far, to our knowledge there have been no published studies comparing conventional techniques to less invasive endoscopic techniques for harvesting the radial artery. Therefore, we propose a prospective randomized study to determine if the radial artery can be routinely harvested using an endoscopic minimally invasive technique. We wish to compare the conventional open technique to the minimally invasive technique to determine if there are any differences in postoperative complications, length of hospital stay or possible differences in patient satisfaction in cosmetic results (scarring) between the two techniques.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00303706
|London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital|
|London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5A5|
|Principal Investigator:||Bob Kiaii, MD, FRCSC||Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Western Ontario and the London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital|