Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention

Even though saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) are the most commonly used surgical conduits, their long-term patency is limited by accelerated atherosclerosis often resulting in acute coronary syndrome or asymptomatic occlusion. SVG intervention is associated with 2 significant challenges: a significant risk of distal embolization with resultant periprocedural myocardial infarction in the short-term and restenosis in the long-term. Several individual trials have compared bare metal stents with drug-eluting stents for SVG intervention. This review article discusses the pathophysiology of SVG lesions, indications for SVG intervention, and the challenges encountered, and also technical considerations for SVG intervention and the supporting evidence.

Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions within coronary artery bypass grafts

INTRODUCTION

The long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) within coronary artery bypasses are still poor as compared to those within native coronary arteries. Thus, we aimed to assess predictors of long-term clinical outcomes after PCIs of coronary bypasses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We enrolled 194 patients after PCIs of coronary artery bypasses at the mean age of 69.5 ±8.3 years (73.2% male). The primary study endpoint was a combination of target-vessel revascularization (TVR), target-lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and death. The mean follow-up was 964 ±799.1 days and was completed among 156 patients. Multivariate analysis was used to assess determinants of study endpoints during follow-up. Moreover, we compared survival curves according to the type of PCI and presence of anti-embolic protection.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint of the study occurred in 59.7% of patients after the mean time of 669.6 ±598.7 days. The TVR occurred in 37.9% of individuals, TLR in 24.2%, MI in 26.3%, stroke in 4.2%, CABG in 2.1% and death in 30.5% of patients. In Cox multivariate analysis, PCI of two or more bypasses (p < 0.01), post-dilatation (p < 0.05) and no-reflow (p < 0.05) were the independent determinants of the primary study endpoint. No significant impact of anti-embolic protection devices on long-term outcomes was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous coronary interventions of two or more bypasses, post-dilatation and no-reflow are predictors of worse outcome in patients undergoing PCI within coronary artery bypass grafts.

Current State of the Art in Approaches to Saphenous Vein Graft Interventions

Saphenous vein grafts (SVGs), used during coronary artery bypass graft surgery for severe coronary artery disease, are prone to degeneration and occlusion, leading to poor long-term patency compared with arterial grafts. Interventions used to treat SVG disease are susceptible to high rates of periprocedural MI and no-reflow. To minimise complications seen with these interventions, proper stents, embolic protection devices (EPDs) and pharmacological selection are crucial. Regarding stent selection, evidence has demonstrated superiority of drug-eluting stents over bare-metal stents in SVG intervention. The ACCF/AHA/SCA American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines recommend the use of EPDs during SVG intervention to decrease the risk of periprocedural MI, distal embolisation and no-reflow. The optimal pharmacological treatment for slow or no-reflow remains unclear, but various vasodilators show promise.

Saphenous vein graft intervention

Saphenous vein grafts are commonly used conduits for surgical revascularization of coronary arteries but are associated with poor long-term patency rates. Percutaneous revascularization of saphenous vein grafts is associated with worse clinical outcomes including higher rates of in-stent restenosis, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, and death compared with percutaneous coronary intervention of native coronary arteries. Use of embolic protection devices is a Class I indication according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines to decrease the risk of distal embolization, no-reflow, and periprocedural myocardial infarction. Nonetheless, these devices are underused in clinical practice. Various pharmacological agents are available that may also reduce the risk of or mitigate the consequences of no-reflow. Covered stents do not decrease the rates of periprocedural myocardial infarction and restenosis. Most available evidence supports treatment with drug-eluting stents in this high-risk lesion subset to reduce angiographic and clinical restenosis, although large, randomized trials comparing drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents are needed.