Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

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

Collins, Peter, Webb, Carolyn M., Chong, Chee F., Moat, Neil E.·2008·Circulation

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.107.736215

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 293

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.