Deferring non-emergent cardiac surgery became the strategy of choice for several international healthcare systems afflicted by high case burdens of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19) in order to both conserve valuable healthcare resources and protect patients from possible exposure. Missing from the available dataset to help guide policy development has been a clear understanding of the extent to which COVID-19 infection modulates cardiac surgery outcomes. In their investigation, Bonalumi and colleagues uncovered an inpatient COVID-19 positivity rate of almost 10 times higher than that of the general Italian population, as well as a mortality rate over 20 times higher amongst cardiac surgery patients with perioperative COVID-19 infection compared to those COVID-negative. While the summation of available evidence points to the serious consideration cardiac surgeons must give to delaying surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic, recognition must be given to the risks that postponing cardiac surgery may have on patient outcomes. Emerging data is beginning to demonstrate the efficacy of vaccination in preventing postoperative COVID-19 infection and morbidity.

Since the introduction of the saphenous vein graft (SVG) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 1962, the SVG has remained the most commonly used conduit to the non-LAD territories for more than half a century. However, several issues surrounding the use of SVGs, including higher graft occlusion rates and wound complications from the harvesting process, have been identified in clinical practice. As such, significant interest has been dedicated towards developing harvesting techniques that minimize the risk of these acute and late complications. In this issue of the Journal of Cardiac Surgery, Yokoyama and colleagues compared the impact of open vein harvesting (OVH), endoscopic vein harvesting (EVH) and no-touch vein harvesting (NT) on all-cause mortality, revascularization and graft failure, using a network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies. The results showed that the risk of graft failure was approximately halved amongst patients receiving NT compared with EVH and OVH; importantly, though, NT was not associated with lower all-cause mortality or revascularization risk. To further examine whether the use of NT grafts endow patients with better long-term clinical outcomes, such as mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization rates, a large-scaled randomized controlled trial or a patient-level combined meta-analysis is required.