Background. Research trials have shown improved short-term outcome with drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare metal stents (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), primarily by reducing target vessel revascularization (TVR) for in-stent restenosis. We compared the outcomes in patients undergoing SVG stent implantation treated with DES or BMS. In exploratory analyses we investigated the influence of stent generation and diameter. Methods. Data were obtained from a prospective database of 657 patients who underwent PCI for SVG lesions between 2003 and 2011. A total of 344 patients had PCI with BMS and 313 with DES. Propensity scores were developed based on 15 observed baseline covariates in a logistic regression model with stent type as the dependent variable. The nearest-neighbour-matching algorithm with Greedy 5-1 Digit Matching was used to produce two patient cohorts of 313 patients each. We assessed major adverse cardiac events (MACE) out to a median of 3.3 years (interquartile range: 2.1-4.1). MACE was defined as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), TVR and stroke. Results. There was a significant difference in MACE between the two groups in favour of DES (17.9% DES vs. 31.2% BMS group; p = 0.0017) over the 5-year follow-up period. MACE was driven by increased TVR in the BMS group. There was no difference in death, MI or stroke. Adjusted Cox analysis confirmed a decreased risk of MACE for DES compared with BMS 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.94), with no difference in the hazard of allcause mortality (hazard ratio: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.77-1.68). However, when looking at stent diameters greater than 4 mm, no difference was seen in MACE rates between BMS and DES. Conclusions. Overall in our cohort of patients who had PCI for SVG disease, DES use resulted in lower MACE rates compared with BMS over a 5-year follow-up period; however, for stent diameters over 4 mm no difference in MACE rates was seen.
Bare metal stent, Drug-eluting stent, Percutaneous intervention, Stroke, Target vessel revascularisation, Venous graft
Financial support: No grants or funding have been received for this
Dr. Roshan Weerackody Barts Heart Centre Barts Health NHS Trust West Smithfield EC1A 7BE, London, UK Roshan.email@example.com
Share this Article
Related Content In Interventional Cardiology
Foreword – Heart International. 2020;14(2):66
Welcome to the latest edition of Heart International. I would like to begin by paying tribute to all the victims of the coronavirus pandemic. I know of very few people who have not lost a family member, friend, colleague or a neighbour with COVID-19. Such deaths are not simply statistics, for behind each death is a […]
A Review of Bleeding Risk with Impella-supported High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Heart International. 2020;14(2):92-99 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17925/HI.2020.14.2.92
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has evolved over recent years, with increasingly more complex, high-risk procedures being performed, including in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease with or without left main disease, often complicated by severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction.1 In addition, decisions about coronary bypass surgery or PCI often focus not only on coronary anatomy, […]
Summary of Practice Considerations for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Left Main Bifurcation Disease
Heart International. 2020;14(2):69-72 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17925/HI.2020.14.2.69
Technical approaches to left main (LM) revascularisation by percutaneous techniques continues to be in evolution. This manuscript will attempt to summarise the current best practices for LM percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Following a clinical decision for PCI of left main bifurcation (LMB) stenosis, based on angiographic, imaging and functional severity, and supported by current guidelines […]
Journal articles and more to your inbox
Get the latest clinical insights from touchCARDIOSign me up!