The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Randomized Comparison of Radial-Artery and Saphenous-Vein Coronary Bypass Grafts
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the past decade, the radial artery has frequently been used for coronary bypass surgery despite concern regarding the possibility of graft spasm. Graft patency is a key predictor of long-term survival. We therefore sought to determine the relative patency rate of radial-artery and saphenous-vein grafts in a randomized trial in which we controlled for bias in the selection of patients and vessels. METHODS: We enrolled 561 patients at 13 centers. The left internal thoracic artery was used to bypass the anterior circulation. The radial-artery graft was randomly assigned to bypass the major vessel in either the inferior (right coronary) territory or the lateral (circumflex) territory, with the saphenous-vein graft used for the opposing territory (control). The primary end point was graft occlusion, determined by angiography 8 to 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Angiography was performed at one year in 440 patients: 8.2 percent of radial-artery grafts and 13.6 percent of saphenous-vein grafts were completely occluded (P=0.009). Diffuse narrowing of the graft (the angiographic "string sign") was present in 7.0 percent of radial-artery grafts and only 0.9 percent of saphenous-vein grafts (P=0.001). The absence of severe native-vessel stenosis was associated with an increased risk of occlusion of the radial-artery graft and diffuse narrowing of the graft. Harvesting of the radial artery was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Radial-artery grafts are associated with a lower rate of graft occlusion at one year than are saphenous-vein grafts. Because the patency of radial-artery grafts depends on the severity of native-vessel stenosis, such grafts should preferentially be used for target vessels with high-grade lesions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
2018 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization
Neumann, F.-J., Sousa-Uva, M., Ahlsson, A., Alfonso, F., Banning, A. P., Benedetto, U., Byrne, R. A., Collet, J.-P., Falk, V., Head, S. J., et al. (2019) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394 · Cited by 7,167
2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization
Neumann, F.-J., Sousa-Uva, M., Ahlsson, A., Alfonso, F., Banning, A. P., Benedetto, U., Byrne, R. A., Collet, J.-P., Falk, V., Head, S. J., et al. (2019) · EuroIntervention · doi:10.4244/eijy19m01_01 · Cited by 1,259
2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Hillis, L. D., Smith, P. K., Anderson, J. L., Bittl, J. A., Bridges, C. R., Byrne, J. G., Cigarroa, J. E., DiSesa, V. J., Hiratzka, L. F., Hutter, A. M., et al. (2011) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.009 · Cited by 820
Metadata
- Authors
- Desai, N. D., Cohen, E. A., Naylor, C. D., & Fremes, S. E.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2004-11-25
- Volume
- 351
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 2302-2309
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2093288623
- Cited by
- 528
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 30.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Randomized Comparison of Radial-Artery and Saphenous-Vein Coronary Bypass Grafts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa040982
- The paper
- Desai, N. D., Cohen, E. A., Naylor, C. D., & Fremes, S. E. (2004). A Randomized Comparison of Radial-Artery and Saphenous-Vein Coronary Bypass Grafts. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa040982
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.