Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 19, 2026
Synergizing Antegrade Endoscopic with Bridging Vein Harvesting for Improvement of Great Saphenous Vein Graft Quality from the Lower Leg
Published on: November 19, 2019
Sequential Versus Individual Saphenous Vein Grafting During Coronary Arterial Bypass Surgery
Sung Jun Park1, Ho Jin Kim1, Joon Bum Kim1
1Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Background:
Although multiarterial grafting or bilateral mammary artery use is being increasingly emphasized for contemporary coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) practice, saphenous vein graft (SVG) is still the most frequently used CABG conduit, and it accounts for 80% of all CABG conduits. Research focusing on modifiable surgical factors such as anastomosis technique, however, is scarce. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and graft patency according to anastomosis methods of vein grafting.
Methods:
From January 2005 through December 2016, patients who underwent CABG using SVG either by a sequential or an individual grafting technique were enrolled in this study. Graft patency was evaluated with coronary computed tomographic angiography. Propensity-score matching was used to compare the clinical outcomes and graft patency of these 2 grafting techniques to reduce treatment selection bias.
Results:
Overall 2515 eligible patients, 1,037 in the sequential SVG graft group (41.3%) and 1478 (58.8%) in the individual SVG graft group were enrolled. After propensity-score matching, 901 matched pairs of patients and 891 matched pairs of grafts were included in the final outcome analysis. There were no significant differences in unadjusted (P = .83) and adjusted overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.17; P = .67). The composite outcome of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization also did not significantly differ between the sequential SVG and the individual SVG groups for both before (P = .20) and after matching (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.09; P = .30). The sequential grafts showed superior patency as compared with the individual grafts for both before (P = .015) and after adjustment (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.82; P < .001).
Conclusions:
The sequential grafting technique of SVG showed fairly acceptable safety and efficacy with superior long-term graft patency than individual grafts. Sequential SVG grafts perhaps can be a reasonable option as a second graft in CABG in some clinical situations.
