Study: Common coronary bypass technique more dangerous than traditional method

A new study has raised a storm of controversy by concluding that the most commonly-used method for extracting leg veins for grafts may be more dangerous than the traditional method.

Over the past 10 years, bypass surgeons have moved from a standard vein-extraction practice to a new, minimally invasive method that is used in about 70 percent of bypasses, according to researchers from Duke Clinical Research Institute. To extract the veins, doctors weave a thin tube through a small incision made in the leg.

However, researchers have concluded that this method may actually put patients at a higher risk of death and other long-term complications than standard vein extractions, with 7.4 percent of patients who had the minimally invasive surgery dying within three years of having the surgery, versus 5.8 percent who undergo traditional vein extractions. Also, patients who underwent the newer "endoscopic harvesting" had higher rates of vein-graft failure within 12 to 18 moths of the bypass, researchers said.

These findings have provoked vigorous disputes from companies making vein-extraction devices, who suggest the study wasn't scientifically rigorous enough to draw the conclusions it did. They may have less to complain about if these conclusions gain more support in future studies, but for a while, it may be a wait-and-see issue.

To learn more about this study:
- read this Wall Street Journal piece