Phase 3
Completed N=142
Radial Artery Versus Saphenous Vein Patency (RSVP) Study
Coronary Arteriosclerosis
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00139399 ↗
Enrolled (actual)
142
Serious AEs
16.9%
Results posted
Jun 2019
Primary outcomePrimary: Patency Rates — 38; 58; 6; 1 Participants
◆ Published Evidence
Highly cited
294citations · ~16 / year
Radial artery versus saphenous vein patency randomized trial: five-year angiographic follow-up.
Summary
The purpose of this study is to determine whether the radial artery (artery in the arm) or saphenous vein (vein in the leg), when used as bypass grafts for coronary artery bypass surgery, have a greater patency rate (degree of opening)at 5 years after surgery.
Linked Publications (3)
-
Radial artery versus saphenous vein patency randomized trial: five-year angiographic follow-up.
-
Comparison of flow characteristics and vascular reactivity of radial artery and long saphenous vein grafts [NCT00139399].
-
Vascular reactivity and flow characteristics of radial artery and long saphenous vein coronary bypass grafts: a 5-year follow-up.
Outcome Measures
| Outcome | Result | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| PRIMARY Patency Rates |
38; 58; 6; 1 | — |
| PRIMARY Mean Diameter of the Study Graft (Saphenous Vein or Radial Artery) |
3.18; 2.7 | — |
| SECONDARY Blood Flow Volume |
39; 44 | — |
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria
- on waiting list for clinically-indicated myocardial revascularization surgery
- aged 40-70 years
- significant stenosis (≥70%) in the circumflex territory as identified on preoperative angiograms
- negative Allen's test (defined as the return of palmar circulation within 5 seconds of releasing ulnar artery compression)
- willing to give written informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
- poor left ventricular (LV) function (LV ejection fraction <25%)
- severe diffuse peripheral vascular disease or bilateral varicose venous disease
- inability to comply with the angiographic follow-up at 3 months or/and 5 years
Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00139399) and the linked publication. Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication. Informational only — not medical advice.