Quantification of thermal spread and burst pressure after endoscopic vessel harvesting: A comparison of 2 commercially available devices

ObjectiveEndoscopic vein harvesting systems have grown in popularity and are becoming the gold standard for coronary artery bypass grafting. Although a consensus is present that endoscopic vessel harvesting minimizes wound complications, long-term graft patency remains a concern. It has been proposed that endoscopic vessel harvesting affects graft patency because of irreversible trauma to the endothelium. This study was performed to examine the extent of thermal injury caused by 2 commercially available endoscopic vessel harvesting systems in a porcine model.MethodsSuperficial epigastric veins and saphenous arteries were exposed in 10 anesthetized swine. All vessel samples (conduits) were harvested randomly with either a VirtuoSaph (Terumo Cardiovascular, Ann Arbor, Mich) or VASOVIEW 6 (MAQUET, Inc, Wayne, NJ) endoscopic vessel harvesting system. Conduits were harvested and saved for either histologic analysis or burst-pressure test. Statistical differences were analyzed by using a Wilcoxon rank sum test in SAS 9.2 software (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC) for thermal spread and a 2-tailed t test with equal variance for burst pressure.ResultsThe average thermal spreads for saphenous artery and superficial epigastric vein conduits were significantly shorter in the VirtuoSaph group (0.42 ± 0.08 and 0.49 ± 0.05 mm, respectively) than in the VASOVIEW 6 group (1.05 ± .04 and 0.94 ± 0.19 mm, respectively). No significant differences were observed in burst pressure.ConclusionsThe length of thermal spread is short in arterial and venous conduits (0.4–1.1 mm) and depends on the endoscopic vessel harvesting system. Clinical protocols should include a minimal length of the cauterized branch to ensure that thermal spread does not reach the main vessel. The results of this study suggest that at least 1 mm is sufficient.