Article

Selective Use of Embolic Protection Devices During Saphenous Vein Grafts Interventions: A Single-Center Experience

Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (Impact Factor: 2.4). 01/2009; 75(7):1037-44. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.22392
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To report on outcomes with selective use of embolic protection devices (EPD) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to saphenous vein grafts (SVG).
PCI to SVG is associated with increased risk and the use of EPD is recommended in this setting. Methods: Angiographic and clinical outcomes were prospectively obtained from 534 consecutive patients who underwent PCI to SVG with or without EPD at a tertiary cardiac centre. Long-term outcomes were obtained by linkage to a provincial registry.
EPD, deployed in 198 of 373 SVGs (53%) suitable for deployment of a distal EPD, were used more often in ectatic (33% vs. 19%, P = 0.003), ulcerated (17% vs. 9%, P = 0.03), thrombotic (26% vs. 10%, P < 0.0001) vein grafts, with longer degenerated segments (P = 0.002), and in lesions involving the body of the graft (85% vs. 66%, P < 0.0001), and less with lesions involving the graft ostium (29% vs. 44%, P = 0.003). Patients suitable for but not receiving EPD tended to be more likely to have a periprocedural myocardial infarction. During 3 years of follow-up, 49% of the patients had a cardiovascular event. Cumulative mortality was 8.4%, 18.8% and 14.7% in patients unsuitable for distal EPD, suitable but without EPD, and with EPD (p = 0.11). Nonuse of EPD was an independent predictor of MACE at 3 years. (P = 0.02).
Selective use of EPD is associated with low in-hospital cardiovascular event rates. Long-term outcomes are manifested by a high rate of events, especially in patients with SVG's suitable for but not receiving EPD. This suggests that routine use of distal EPD may be warranted in unselected patients with suitable SVG anatomy.

Full-text

Available from: Vladimir Dzavik, Mar 18, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
160 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the procedure characteristics and long term follow-up of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for saphaneous vein graft (SVG) lesions in the elderly patients. From December 2005 to December 2011, 84 graft lesions were treated percutaneously. Seventeen were located at proximal anastomosis, 48 were located at SVG body, 19 were located at distal anastomosis. Primary endpoint was defined as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, composite of cardiac death, target vessel revascularization, acute myocardial infarction). The graft age was 6.7 ± 4.0 years. Most anastomosis lesions (80.0%) presented within one year post coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Proximal anastomosis lesion had the lowest successful rate for PCI compared with graft body and distal anastomosis lesions (70.6% vs. 91.7%, 79.0%, P < 0.05). The distal embolic protection device was used in 19.1% of patients, most frequently used in body graft PCI (29.2%, P < 0.01). The diameter of the stent was smallest in distal anastomosis group (2.9 ± 0.4 mm, P < 0.05). The highest post dilatation pressure was required in the proximal anastomosis (17.8 ± 2.7 atm, P < 0.05). The patients were followed up for 24.3 ± 16.9 months. MACE occurred in 18.57% of patients. Incidence of MACE was highest among proximal anastomosis PCI (47.1% vs. body graft PCI 16.7%, distal anastomosis PCI 21.1%; P < 0.05). Old myocardial infarction was the predictive factor for the poor clinical outcomes (P = 0.04). PCI of SVG lesions is feasible with lower success rate. PCI of ostial graft anastomosis lesions had the lowest procedure success rate and highest MACE rate compared with graft body and distal anastomosis lesions. Old myocardial infarction was a predictive factor of poor outcomes.
    Journal of Geriatric Cardiology 03/2014; 11(1):26-31. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1671-5411.2014.01.010 · 1.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Although embolic protection devices (EPDs) have been shown to be beneficial in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions, their role in the subgroup of ostial SVG lesions has received limited study. METHODS: The coronary angiograms and procedural outcomes of 109 patients undergoing stenting of 113 ostial SVG lesions were retrospectively reviewed to determine the frequency of EPD use and the periprocedural outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-eight (87%) of the 113 lesions were suitable for EPD use, that was used in 70 lesions (71%). A Filterwire (Boston Scientific) or a SPIDER (ev3) filter were used in 54 (77%) and 16 (23%) of lesions, respectively. Difficulty retrieving the filter post stenting was encountered in eight lesions (11%) and led to stent thrombosis causing cardiac arrest in one patient (1%). Angiographic success was achieved in 111 (98%) of 113 lesions. CONCLUSIONS: EPDs can be utilized in the majority of ostial SVG lesions, but in 11% of cases filter retrieval can be challenging and may rarely (in approximately 1%) lead to a significant complication. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 12/2012; 80(7). DOI:10.1002/ccd.23471 · 2.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The treatment of an occluded saphenous vein graft (SVG) with percutaneous coronary intervention may encounter major adverse cardiac events (MACE). MACE rates have been reduced significantly by using the embolic protection device (EPD). The aim of this study was to clarify the risks and the benefits of embolic protection devices. In a prospective, non-randomized observational study, patients aged 33 to 85 years old who underwent elective percutaneous coronary intervention due to SVG stenosis at our tertiary care center were enrolled between 2009 and 2011. The incidence rates of adverse events, including MACE, were obtained during the patients' hospitalization and at 30-day and 6-month follow-up. MACE included death, Q-wave and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, in-stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization. From 150 patients enrolled to the study, 128 (85.3%) patients underwent direct stenting and the rest underwent the EPD procedure. In-hospital MACE occurred in 17.2% of the patients in the direct stenting group versus only 9.1% in the EPD group (P = 0.530). MACE incidence was gradually increased at one and 6-month follow-up periods in the direct stenting group (19.5% and 21.9%, respectively), and remained unchanged in the EPD group (9.1% at six-month follow-up). Multivariate logistic regression model showed that the stenting procedure type could not predict early and midterm MACE with the presence of baseline characteristics as cofounders. Despite the considerable lower early and midterm MACE rates, numerically following the EPD procedure compared to direct stenting, the difference in the MACE rates between the two groups was not significant.
    02/2014; 3(1):e13012. DOI:10.5812/cardiovascmed.13012