Perioperative routines and surgical techniques for saphenous vein harvesting in CABG surgery: a national cross-sectional study in Sweden

The saphenous vein (SV) is the most commonly used conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) [1, 2]. Wound healing complications related to saphenous vein harvesting (SVH) are common, with reported surgical site infection (SSI) rates ranging from 2 to 20% [3, 4]. Such complications are both a major cause of patient morbidity and an economic burden for the health care system [5]. Patient-dependent risk factors for SSI include diabetes, obesity, advanced age, female gender, and peripheral vascular disease [1, 3]. Several perioperative hygiene routines are aimed at maintaining an aseptic environment and avoiding endogenous or exogenous bacterial contamination: patient skin preparation and draping, routines for handling the surgical equipment, and postoperative dressing [6, 7].

The surgical techniques used for harvesting the SV and closing the wound also play an important role in wound complications [8, 9]. The open harvest technique, which uses a longitudinal skin incision over the vein, might facilitate the occurrence of wound complications. As an alternative to the open conventional technique (CT), the “no-touch” technique (NT), where the vein is harvested along with the perivascular adipose tissue was introduced at our department and published for the first time in 1996 [10]. When closing the wound, the number of subcutaneous suture layers as well as the choice of the suture material might influence the incidence of complications [11‐13]. An endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) technique can also be used in order to reduce the incidence of wound complications [8].

The perioperative hygiene routines and varieties in surgical methods for SVH are unfortunately often poorly evaluated scientifically. We therefore hypothesised that these routines might be based more on local traditions than on scientific evidence, and that surgical methods might differ substantially between different centres. To our knowledge, no previous studies have investigated current routines and surgical methods regarding SVH for CABG.

The aim of this nationwide study was to determine current practice in terms of perioperative hygiene routines and surgical methods used by Swedish OT nurses and cardiac surgeons regarding saphenous vein harvesting for CABG.

Responses were received from all hospitals. Among the 119 OT nurses and 111 surgeons who were identified, the total response rate was 62/119 (52%) from the OT nurses and 56/111 (50%) from the surgeons.

This study is the first survey describing perioperative hygiene routines and surgical methods regarding SVH in Sweden. The main finding was that although perioperative hygiene routines were similar between the centres and the interventions recommended by the national guidelines were implemented in daily work, aspects such as the techniques for harvesting the vein and closing the wound differed markedly between the surgeons and centres.

There are differences internationally regarding preoperative preparation of the surgical patient. Depending on country, the patient may be prepared in the OT by the surgeon or by nurses with differing educational levels and training. In Sweden, the OT nurse has an independent role and takes responsibility for OT aseptic techniques, skin preparation and draping of the patient, and generally maintaining good care for the surgical patient, such as preventing hypothermia and decubitus [7, 19].

Chlorhexidine 5 mg/mL in 70% ethanol was used in all centres, and the skin disinfection was most commonly performed for three to 5 minutes according to national guidelines [20]. Almost all of the OT nurses had a separate table and/or separate instruments for the vein harvesting, a standard routine which probably stems from a general belief that bacteria can spread from the leg wound to the sternotomy. However, in contradiction of this belief, we showed in a previous study that there is almost no intraoperative bacterial growth on the skin or in the subcutaneous tissue at the harvest site on the leg [18]. In contrast, there is bacterial growth subcutaneously in the sternotomy during surgery in most patients [21]. Thus, in our opinion, the generally accepted routine in which the assistant surgeon changes gloves after vein harvesting lacks evidence and is not justified. On the other hand, studies have shown that the micro perforation rate of gloves increases over time, and bacteria could possibly pass through the perforation [22‐24] and contaminate the wound. There are no Swedish guidelines for when surgical gloves should be changed, but international guidelines from the Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses [25] recommend changing the outer glove every 90 min whether the gloves are macroscopically damaged or not. It could be relevant to apply these guidelines also in Sweden.

The harvest technique has a contributory role in the development of leg wound SSI. The open harvest approach increases the risk for SSI compared with the EVH technique [8, 9, 15]. However, some studies report that the EVH technique might impair graft patency [8, 26]. This might be the main reason why, in this study, the open vein harvesting technique was used by 100% of respondents. The NT has gradually increased in popularity [27], possibly because graft patency with this technique have been demonstrated to be superior to those with CT [17, 28]. Nevertheless, CT was used by 78.6% of the participants in the present study. It remains to be seen whether the choice of CT or NT for open vein harvesting technique significantly influences the rate of leg wound SSI, but results from at least one ongoing large multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the two techniques (NCT03501303) should provide more information.

Our participants differed in terms of the subcutaneous suture layer and types of sutures used to close the leg wound. One study found that the subcutaneous suture did not reduce the postoperative infection rate [12], while another showed that wound gaps were associated with SSI in the leg [11]. The latter study [11] also showed that the choice of suture and suturing technique is important to prevent SSI in the leg. A lower rate of SSI has been found in cases where the assistant surgeon was experienced [12]. Approximately half of the surgeons in the present study used sutures coated with triclosan. Prospective randomised studies have yielded differing results [13, 29]. In one study of 328 CABG patients, triclosan-coated sutures did not reduce SSI in the leg wound [29]. However, in a later randomised controlled trial of 374 patients, the SSI rate was significantly reduced with triclosan sutures [13].

The high incidence of SSI in prospective studies is a pertinent and troublesome issue, and many factors affect the results. Evidence is lacking, and there are a number of routines and methods which are not based on evidence but have not been de-implemented. One routine lacking evidence is the routine of preparing a separate table and/or separate instruments for the vein harvesting, mentioned above. De-implementation is a process for identifying and removing practices based on tradition and habits which lack adequate scientific support [30]. In the pursuit of evidence-based health care, de-implementation of old routines is just as important as the implementation of new evidence. The difficulties and success factors for introducing evidence-based practice in clinical work have been described in implementation research [31]. It is of the greatest importance to discuss and prepare implementation strategies for clinical practice [32].

This national cross-sectional survey was performed in order to identify unjustifiable differences or peculiarities in current practice which might signal a lack of scientific evidence. Our findings could provide a basis for further studies aimed at reducing the incidence of complications after SVH.

One limitation of the study was the self-designed questionnaires, which were used since we found no relevant existing survey material. This carried a risk that essential questions might be missed. To increase the content validity, the questionnaires were tested within a small pilot group before they were distributed to the full group. The response rates for the two questionnaires were 52% for the OT nurses and 50% for the surgeons, which may have led to response bias. We could also have sent a postal survey instead of a web-based questionnaire to allow for answering in different ways [33]. We believe that the response rate gives the study moderate external validity. A strength of the study was that there were respondents from all centres in Sweden. No comparisons between centres or respondents were performed.

In this study we present an insight into the hygiene routines and surgical methods currently used by OT nurses and cardiac surgeons in Sweden. The results indicate both similarities and differences between the centres. There is a lack of evidence regarding common routines and methods. Local tradition might be one of the most important factor determining which procedures are employed in the OT.