The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Radial Artery Versus Saphenous Vein Patency Randomized Trial: Five-Year Angiographic Follow-Up
Abstract
Background— Graft patency is a fundamental predictor of long-term survival after coronary artery bypass surgery. Left and right internal thoracic artery (arterial) graft patency has been shown to be superior to that of saphenous vein grafts. More recently, the radial artery has been used as an aortocoronary graft, but little is known about the midterm and long-term patency of this conduit. We performed a single-center prospective randomized trial comparing the angiographic patency of radial artery and saphenous vein aortocoronary bypass grafts at 5 years after surgery. Methods and Results— We enrolled 142 patients randomized at a single center to have either the radial artery or saphenous vein grafted to a stenosed branch of the native left circumflex coronary artery. The primary end point was angiographic graft patency 5 years postoperatively. At 5 years, 134 patients were alive and eligible for reangiography (5-year survival, 94.4%). Angiography was performed in 103 patients (77%); 98.3% of radial artery grafts and 86.4% of saphenous vein grafts were patent ( P =0.04). Graft narrowing occurred in 10% of patent radial artery grafts and 23% of patent saphenous vein grafts ( P =0.01). Conclusions— Radial artery aortocoronary bypass grafts to a stenosed branch of the circumflex coronary artery have an excellent patency rate at 5 years. This was significantly better than the patency rate for saphenous vein grafts and comparable to reported patency rates for internal thoracic artery grafts.
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
Cites
How to Report Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Rennie, D. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080071033 · Cited by 77
Cited by
2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease
Task Force Members, Montalescot, G., Sechtem, U., Achenbach, S., Andreotti, F., Arden, C., Budaj, A., Bugiardini, R., Crea, F., Cuisset, T., et al. (2013) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht296 · Cited by 4,510
Radial-Artery or Saphenous-Vein Grafts in Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery
Gaudino, M., Benedetto, U., Fremes, S., Biondi-Zoccai, G., Sedrakyan, A., Puskas, J. D., Angelini, G. D., Buxton, B., Frati, G., Hare, D. L., et al. (2018) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1716026 · Cited by 578
Self-citationRandomized Trial of Bilateral versus Single Internal-Thoracic-Artery Grafts
Taggart, D. P., Altman, D. G., Gray, A. M., Lees, B., Gerry, S., Benedetto, U., & Flather, M. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1610021 · Cited by 388
Harskamp, R. E., Lopes, R. D., Baisden, C. E., de Winter, R. J., & Alexander, J. H. (2013) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e318288c38d · Cited by 370
Mechanisms, Consequences, and Prevention of Coronary Graft Failure
Gaudino, M., Antoniades, C., Benedetto, U., Deb, S., Di Franco, A., Di Giammarco, G., Fremes, S., Glineur, D., Grau, J., He, G.-W., et al. (2017) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.117.027597 · Cited by 355
Metadata
- Authors
- Collins, P., Webb, C. M., Chong, C. F., & Moat, N. E.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 2008-06-03
- Volume
- 117
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 2859-2864
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W2047394124
- Cited by
- 293
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.45
- 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: Radial Artery Versus Saphenous Vein Patency Randomized Trial: Five-Year Angiographic Follow-Up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.107.736215
- The paper
- Collins, P., Webb, C. M., Chong, C. F., & Moat, N. E. (2008). Radial Artery Versus Saphenous Vein Patency Randomized Trial: Five-Year Angiographic Follow-Up. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.107.736215
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.