AzTrials
AzTrials

Angina PectorisNCT01480726

Long-term Results Following Endoscopic Vein Harvesting in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

An observational study of Angina Pectoris, run by Aalborg University Hospital at 1 site in Denmark.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Vena saphena magna is still frequently used as graft material in coronary artery bypass grating(CABG, and vein grafts can harvest with either the conventional open technique (Ovh = open vein harvesting), or with less invasive endoscopic techniques (EVH = Endoscopic vein harvesting). Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 43 to 90 years
Conditions the study is for
Angina Pectoris
What is being tested?
Surgery
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
How many people
132 participants
Where
1 siteDenmark
Study dates
Nov 2011to Jan 2015
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 43 to 90 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: A total of 132 patients who underwent CABG 4-7 years ago. All patients participated in a randomized study focusing on wound complications from the leg following either open or endoscopic vein harvest.

Who may be able to join

  • Patients who participated in the previous randomized study
  • Informed consent from the patient

Who cannot join

  • Survival until date of reexamination
  • No informed consent
  • CT scan of the heart will not be performed in patients with if: atrial fibrillation,p-creatinin >120 micromol/l, allergy to contrast, pregnancy, lactating.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Denmark1 site
  • Aalborg University Hospital

    Aalborg, 9100

Other trials in Denmark

About this study

Official title: Endoscopic Versus Open Vein Harvest in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. Clinical and CT-angiographic Long-term Result From a Randomized Study.

Vena saphena magna is still frequently used as graft material in coronary artery bypass grating(CABG, and vein grafts can harvest with either the conventional open technique (Ovh = open vein harvesting), or with less invasive endoscopic techniques (EVH = Endoscopic vein harvesting). The endoscopic techniques have been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative wound complications while patients are more satisfied with the cosmetic result of the operation on the leg.

Non-randomized studies have raised doubts about patency rates of the vein grafts following EVH compared to OVH, while other studies failed to detect any problems in relation to this. There are only very few data on long-term patency rates from randomized studies.

Read more

The purpose of this study is to investigate clinical outcome and patency rates of the vein grafts following either EVH and OVH in 132 patients who underwent CABG for 4-7 years ago as part of a randomized study investigation wound complications. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed.

The hypothesis is: Patency rates following EVH are worse compared to OVH in CABG 4-7 years postoperatively.

Read the detailed description

Background

Vena saphena magna is frequently used as graft material in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG. Vein grafts can be harvested with conventional open technique (OVH = open vein harvesting), or with various endoscopic less invasive techniques (EVH = Endoscopic vein harvesting). The endoscopic techniques have been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative wound complications and patients are more satisfied with the cosmetic surgery results.

Non-randomized trials, however, cast doubt on the patency rates of the vein grafts following EVH compared to OVH, while other studies including one randomized trial failed to detect any problems regarding this. There are no data regarding long-term patency rate following EVH.

It is therefore valuable to conduct a secondary follow-up among CABG patients who 4-7 years ago were included in a randomized trial focusing on wound complications from the leg. Although the study was not designed to evaluate the clinical results and patency rates of vein graft, such a study may still contribute with important knowledge because the results will come from a randomized patient cohorts, in contrast to results from most other studies.

Purpose

To investigate long-term patency rates (4-7 years) patency rates and clinical outcomes following EVH and OVH in first-time CABG.

We also want to perform a health economic analysis (cost-effectiveness analysis) to assess which of the two harvesting methods.

Hypotheses:

  1. Patency rates following EVH are worse compared to OVH in CABG 4-7 years postoperatively.
  2. EVH is associated with an increased incidence of recurrence of angina and the need for re-revascularization compared with OVH.
  3. Although EVH immediately leads to higher direct costs compared with OVH, there is a health economic benefit of this method in the long run.

Methods:

This experiment consists of a follow-up among 129 of 132 former patients who underwent first-time CABG between April 2004 - June 2007 at Aalborg Hospital, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, comparing EVH and OVH. Register data will be collected and patient records will be reviewed. Surviving patients will be invited for a clinical evaluation. CT-angio in order to compare long-term patency rates of the vein grafts will be performed. Furthermore the incidence of recurrent angina, acute coronary syndrome, need for re-revascularization and cardiovascular death since the operation wil be evaluated.

All direct and indirect costs of the two methods of surgery and throughout the postoperative course until this study will be valued in order to perform a health economic analysis (cost-effectiveness analysis).

Subjects The age of the previous trial subjects was 65 years (range 43-90 years, at the time they were included in the previous study, and survivors will be 4-7 years old today.

It is expected that most of the surviving former patients will participate in the study.

Inclusion Criteria

All 129 former patients who were included in the initial trial may be included. Deceased patients are only included in the trial regarding registry data and medical records.

Exclusion criteria (in relation to the clinical examination):

Lack of consent. (Register Data for previous patients who did not give their informed consent for a clinical follow-up may be included in the study)

Exclusion criteria (in relation to CT-angio):

Former patients with at least one of the following exclusion criteria will not have a CT-angio performed:

p-creatinine> 120 micromol / l Estimated GFR (eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate) per 1.73 m2 <60 ml / min.

Atrial fibrillation Allergy to contrast media Pregnancy Breastfeeding Lack of consent

Conditions
Angina Pectoris
Being tested
Surgery
Medical subject headings
Angina Pectoris

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • SurgeryProcedure or surgery

Study groups in NCT01480726
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Open vein harvestConventional open vein harvest from the lower leg
Receives: Procedure: Surgery
Endoscopic vein harvestEndoscopic vein harvest from the calf
Receives: Procedure: Surgery

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Patency rates of vein grafts

    Measured: 5-7 years postoperatively

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. recurrence of angina pectoris

    Measured: 5-7 years postoperatively

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted29 Nov 2011 (estimated)
  2. Study startNov 2011
  3. Primary completionDec 2013
  4. Study completionJan 2015

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
132 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01480726
Sponsor's protocol ID
N20110023
Status last verified
Nov 2011
First submitted
24 Nov 2011
Last updated
14 Apr 2015
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Angina Pectoris, run by Aalborg University Hospital at 1 site in Denmark.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Apr 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Denmark. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Patency rates of vein grafts (time frame: 5-7 years postoperatively). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Apr 2015.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in