{"id":"0fa3f54ab6b3","type":"article","url":"https://hartvaat.nl/2019/01/10/endoscopische-versus-open-veneoogst-bij-cabg-nejm-regroup/","title":"Endoscopische versus open veneoogst bij CABG: NEJM REGROUP","title_en":"Randomized Trial of Endoscopic or Open Vein-Graft Harvesting for Coronary-Artery Bypass.","category":"algemeen","category_label":"Algemeen","professions":["cardioloog"],"tags":[],"journal":"The New England journal of medicine","doi":"10.1056/NEJMoa1812390","source_url":"https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1812390","authors":["Marco A Zenati","Deepak L Bhatt","Faisal G Bakaeen","Eileen M Stock","Kousick Biswas","J Michael Gaziano","Rosemary F Kelly","Elaine E Tseng","Jerene Bitondo","Jacquelyn A Quin","G Hossein Almassi","Miguel Haime","Brack Hattler","Ellen DeMatt","Alexandra Scrymgeour","Grant D Huang"],"significance":8,"published":"2019-01-10","source_date":"2019-01-10","image":"","kennis":[],"congress":"","summary_en":"The REGROUP trial demonstrated that endoscopic saphenous vein harvesting was noninferior to open harvesting for vein graft failure after CABG. The result provided reassurance that the less invasive and more widely used endoscopic technique does not compromise graft quality.","created":"2026-07-03T10:27:43Z","updated":"2026-07-03T13:26:56Z","licence":"Citeer vrij, met bronvermelding en een link naar hartvaat.nl (de url van het record). Samenvattingen zijn redactioneel werk van HartVaat; de oorspronkelijke publicaties blijven van hun uitgevers (doi). Geen medisch advies.","body_markdown":"NEJM REGROUP gerandomiseerde trial die endoscopische vergeleek met open veneoogst bij CABG. Geen verschil in graft-falen — geruststellend voor de minder invasieve techniek.","abstract_original":"BACKGROUND: The saphenous-vein graft is the most common conduit for coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). The influence of the vein-graft harvesting technique on long-term clinical outcomes has not been well characterized. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients undergoing CABG at 16 Veterans Affairs cardiac surgery centers to either open or endoscopic vein-graft harvesting. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiac events, including death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Leg-wound complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1150 patients underwent randomization. Over a median follow-up of 2.78 years, the primary outcome occurred in 89 patients (15.5%) in the open-harvest group and 80 patients (13.9%) in the endoscopic-harvest group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.51; P=0.47). A total of 46 patients (8.0%) in the open-harvest group and 37 patients (6.4%) in the endoscopic-harvest group died (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.92); myocardial infarctions occurred in 34 patients (5.9%) in the open-harvest group and 27 patients (4.7%) in the endoscopic-harvest group (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.77 to 2.11), and revascularization occurred in 35 patients (6.1%) in the open-harvest group and 31 patients (5.4%) in the endoscopic-harvest group (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.85). Leg-wound infections occurred in 18 patients (3.1%) in the open-harvest group and in 8 patients (1.4%) in the endoscopic-harvest group (relative risk, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.99 to 5.15). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing CABG, we did not find a significant difference between open vein-graft harvesting and endoscopic vein-graft harvesting in the risk of major adverse cardiac events. (Funded by the Cooperative Studies Program, Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs; REGROUP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01850082 .)."}