The saphenous vein graft (SVG) remains the most commonly used conduit in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), yet its limited long-term patency adversely affects patient outcomes. SVG failure is a multistage pathological process, characterized by early thrombosis, intermediate intimal hyperplasia, and late atherosclerotic degeneration. These changes are driven by endothelial dysfunction induced by ischemia-reperfusion and mechanical injury, smooth muscle cell phenotypic modulation, inflammatory activation, and conventional cardiovascular risk factors. Preventive strategies for SVG failure have increasingly focused on both surgical and pharmacological optimization. Surgical approaches include appropriate target vessel and anastomotic site selection, refinement of SVG harvesting techniques (notably the no-touch technique and endoscopic vein harvesting), optimization of graft configurations, and routine intraoperative graft flow assessment. Postoperative secondary prevention is essential, as antithrombotic and lipid-lowering therapies have been shown to reduce SVG occlusion. In addition, emerging therapies, including gene-based interventions, antiproliferative agents, novel graft preservation solutions, and external vein graft supports, show promise in improving SVG durability. Integrated multimodal strategies may further reduce SVG failure and improve long-term outcomes after CABG. This article provides a review of researches related to SVG failure, including the mechanisms of failure, intraoperative preventive measures, pharmacological prevention, and recent advances in treatment, aiming to offer insights for clinical diagnosis, treatment and future studies.

Objective::While evidence-based clinical guidelines recommend chordal-sparing mitral valve replacement, rather than mitral valve repair, in patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, there are no similar recommendations for patients undergoing left ventricular reconstruction (LVR). This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of mitral valve repair and replacement in patients undergoing LVR complicated by more than moderate IMR.Methods::In this single-center cohort study, a total of 74 consecutive patients who underwent LVR and mitral valve surgery (repair group: 59; replacement group: 15), during the period from March 2000 to March 2021 at Fuwai Hospital (Beijing, China) were retrospectively enrolled. Survival rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate Cox analysis was performed to evaluate possible confounders, followed by adjustment in multivariate analysis. The primary outcome was survival free of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).Results::Median follow-up time was 59.4 months. Compared with mitral valve replacement, mitral valve repair was associated with increased risk of perioperative use of ventricular assist device (22.0% vs. 0, P = 0.045). There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR), 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-3.93; Plogrank = 0.888) and MACCE-free survival (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.65-3.65; Plogrank = 0.319), even after multivariate Cox regression (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.37-4.88; PCox = 0.646; and HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.57-3.44; PCox = 0.455, respectively). Furthermore, while no differences were observed in ejection fraction and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter on follow-up echocardiography, mitral valve repair was associated with an increased risk of recurrent mitral regurgitation ( P = 0.041). Conclusions::In patients undergoing LVR complicated by more than moderate IMR, both concomitant mitral valve repair and replacement can be successfully achieved with comparable overall and MACCE-free survival outcomes; however, mitral valve replacement may be superior to mitral valve repair for persistent correction of mitral dysfunction.

Objective::While evidence-based clinical guidelines recommend chordal-sparing mitral valve replacement, rather than mitral valve repair, in patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, there are no similar recommendations for patients undergoing left ventricular reconstruction (LVR). This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of mitral valve repair and replacement in patients undergoing LVR complicated by more than moderate IMR.Methods::In this single-center cohort study, a total of 74 consecutive patients who underwent LVR and mitral valve surgery (repair group: 59; replacement group: 15), during the period from March 2000 to March 2021 at Fuwai Hospital (Beijing, China) were retrospectively enrolled. Survival rates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate Cox analysis was performed to evaluate possible confounders, followed by adjustment in multivariate analysis. The primary outcome was survival free of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).Results::Median follow-up time was 59.4 months. Compared with mitral valve replacement, mitral valve repair was associated with increased risk of perioperative use of ventricular assist device (22.0% vs. 0, P = 0.045). There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR), 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-3.93; Plogrank = 0.888) and MACCE-free survival (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.65-3.65; Plogrank = 0.319), even after multivariate Cox regression (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.37-4.88; PCox = 0.646; and HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.57-3.44; PCox = 0.455, respectively). Furthermore, while no differences were observed in ejection fraction and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter on follow-up echocardiography, mitral valve repair was associated with an increased risk of recurrent mitral regurgitation ( P = 0.041). Conclusions::In patients undergoing LVR complicated by more than moderate IMR, both concomitant mitral valve repair and replacement can be successfully achieved with comparable overall and MACCE-free survival outcomes; however, mitral valve replacement may be superior to mitral valve repair for persistent correction of mitral dysfunction.

Objective    To evaluate the impact of different surgical strategies for moderate functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) at the time of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on patients' prognosis. Methods    A total of 118 AVR patients, including 84 males and 34 females, aged 58.1±12.4 years, who were complicated with moderate FMR were retrospectively recruited. Patients were divided into three groups according to the treatment strategy of mitral valve: a group A (no intervention, n=11), a group B (mitral valve repair, n=51) and a group C (mitral valve replacement, n=56). The primary endpoint was the early and mid-term survival of the patients, and the secondary endpoint was the improvement of FMR. Results    The median follow-up time was 29.5 months. Five patients died perioperatively, all of whom were from the group C. Early postoperative FMR improvement rates in the group A and group B were 90.9% and 94.1% (P=0.694). The mid-term mortality in the three groups were 0.0%, 5.9% and 3.9%, respectively (P=0.264), while the incidences of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were 0.0%, 9.8% and 17.7%, respectively (P=0.230). Improvements of FMR in the group A and group B were 100.0% and 94.3% at the mid-term follow-up (P>0.05). Conclusion    For patients receiving AVR with moderate FMR, conservative treatment or concurrent repair of mitral valve may be more reasonable, while mitral valve replacement may increase the incidence of early and mid-term adverse events.