Article

Contemporary use of embolic protection devices in saphenous vein graft interventions: Insights from the stenting of saphenous vein grafts trial.

Department of Cardiology, VA North Texas Healthcare System, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (Impact Factor: 2.51). 08/2010; 76(2):263-9. DOI: 10.1002/ccd.22438
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We sought to evaluate the contemporary use of embolic protection devices (EPDs) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions.
We examined EPD use in the stenting of saphenous vein grafts (SOS) trial, in which 80 patients with 112 lesions in 88 SVGs were randomized to a bare metal stent (39 patients, 43 grafts, and 55 lesions) or paclitaxel-eluting stent (41 patients, 45 grafts, and 57 lesions).
An EPD was used in 60 of 112 lesions (54%). A Filterwire (Boston Scientific) was used in 70% of EPD-treated lesions, Spider (ev3, Plymouth, Minnesota) in 12%, Proxis (St. Jude, Minneapolis, Minnesota) in 12%, and Guardwire (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) in 7%. Of the remaining 52 lesions, an EPD was not utilized in 13 lesions (25%) because the lesion was near the distal anastomosis, in 14 lesions (27%) because of an ostial location, in one lesion (2%) because of small SVG size, in two in-stent restenosis lesions (4%) because of low distal embolization risk, and in 22 lesions (42%) because of operator's preference even though use of an EPD was feasible. Procedural success was achieved in 77 patients (96%); in one patient a Filterwire was entrapped requiring emergency coronary bypass graft surgery and two patients had acute stent thrombosis.
In spite of their proven efficacy, EPDs were utilized in approximately half of SVG interventions in the SOS trial. Availability of a proximal protection device could allow protection of approximately 25% of unprotected lesions, yet operator discretion appears to be the major determinant of EPD use.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
143 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Saphenous vein graft (SVG) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) currently accounts for approximately 6 % of all PCIs and is associated with increased risk for distal embolization and subsequent SVG failure compared with native coronary artery PCI. To minimize the risk for distal embolization, embolic protection devices should be used during SVG PCI when technically feasible. To minimize the risk for in-stent restenosis and the need for repeat PCI, drug eluting stents should be utilized in patients without contraindications to long-term antiplatelet therapy. Treating native coronary artery lesions is preferable to SVG PCI when technically feasible.
    Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine 05/2014; 16(5):301. DOI:10.1007/s11936-014-0301-x
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: CABG surgery is an effective way to improve symptoms and prognosis in patients with advanced coronary atherosclerotic disease. Despite multiple improvements in surgical technique and patient treatment, graft failure after CABG surgery occurs in a time-dependent fashion, particularly in the second decade after the intervention, in a substantial number of patients because of atherosclerotic progression and saphenous-vein graft (SVG) disease. Until 2010, repeat revascularization by either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or surgical techniques was performed in these high-risk patients in the absence of specific recommendations in clinical practice guidelines, and within a culture of inadequate communication between cardiac surgeons and interventional cardiologists. Indeed, some of the specific technologies developed to reduce procedural risk, such as embolic protection devices for SVG interventions, are largely underused. Additionally, the implementation of secondary prevention, which reduces the need for reintervention in these patients, is still suboptimal. In this Review, graft failure after CABG surgery is examined as a clinical problem from the perspective of holistic patient management. Issues such as the substrate and epidemiology of graft failure, the choice of revascularization modality, the specific problems inherent in repeat CABG surgery and PCI, and the importance of secondary prevention are discussed.
    Nature Reviews Cardiology 07/2012; 9(9):540-9. DOI:10.1038/nrcardio.2012.100 · 10.40 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: We sought to examine the prevalence and progression rate of intermediate saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions in the Stenting Of Saphenous vein grafts (SOS) trial. METHODS: The baseline and follow-up angiograms of 80 patients participating in the SOS trial were analyzed to determine the prevalence of intermediate (30-60% angiographic diameter stenosis) SVG lesions and their progression rate. RESULTS: At least one intermediate SVG lesion was present in 31 of 143 (22%) SVGs in 27 of 80 (34%) patients. Most intermediate lesions were present in the SOS stented SVGs (20 grafts in 19 patients). During a median follow-up of 35months, angiographic follow-up was available for 28 grafts in 25 patients. Progression (defined as percent diameter stenosis ≥70% but <100% at follow-up angiography) was seen in 11 of 28 SVGs (39%) in 11 of 25 patients (44%). Progression rate at 12, 24 and 36months was 28% and 47% and 84%, respectively. Seven of 11 patients (64%) with intermediate SVG lesion progression presented with an acute coronary syndrome and 8 (73%) underwent PCI. Four of the 28 grafts with intermediate lesions at baseline were 100% occluded at follow-up; all of those SVGs had received a stent in another location in the SVG as part of the SOS trial. CONCLUSIONS: Intermediate SVG lesions are common in patients undergoing SVG stenting, have high rates of progression and frequently present with an acute coronary syndrome. Further study of pharmacologic and mechanical treatments to prevent progression of these lesions is needed.
    International journal of cardiology 04/2013; 168(3). DOI:10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.03.006 · 6.18 Impact Factor