Impact of Drug-Eluting Stent Expansion on Saphenous Vein Graft Percutaneous Intervention

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Cardiovascular Intervention Research Center, Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran.

Abstract

Background: We intended to evaluate the effects of stent expansion in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions and compare over-expansion and under-expansion between SVG stents in the case of major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
 
Methods: Totally, 196 SVG lesions were treated with drug-eluting stents. The ratio of the stent diameter to the diameter of the normal part of the SVG (which was without lesions and considered the reference part of the SVG) was measured by quantitative coronary angiography. Subsequently, the patients were divided into 3 groups: Group I (<0.90 expansion: undersized stents), Group II (0.90–1.0 expansion: normal-sized stents), and Group III (>1.0: oversized stents). MACE rates during PCI, hospitalization length, and follow-up findings were compared between the groups. Additionally, the effects of the embolic protection device (EPD) on MACE were assessed.
 
Results: Oversized stenting was associated with increased cardiac enzymes (P=0.035) during hospitalization but was not associated with more MACE or restenosis on follow-up. Statistical analysis demonstrated nonsignificant more revascularization in the oversized group mainly due to unknown vessel revascularization and non-target vessel revascularization (P=0.167 and P=0.108, respectively). There were no differences in other MACE outcomes. The EPD was used in 25% of the patients. By comparison with the group without the EPD, there was no decrease in MACE components except a higher incidence of heart failure in the EPD group (P=0.03).
 
Conclusions: Aggressive stent expansion in SVG lesions resulted in higher myocardial injury; and unlike native arteries, there was no improvement in target vessel revascularization rates at follow-up. (Iranian Heart Journal 2022; 23(1): 85-94)

Keywords

References

  1. Widimsky P, Straka Z, Stros P, Jirasek K, Dvorak J, Votava J, et al. One-year coronary bypass graft patency: a randomized comparison between off-pump and on-pump surgery angiographic results of the PRAGUE-4 trial. Circulation. 2004; 110(22):3418-23.
  2. Goldman S, Zadina K, Moritz T, Ovitt T, Sethi G, Copeland JG, et al. Long-term patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary artery grafts after coronary artery bypass surgery: results from a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2004; 44(11):2149-56.
  3. Beijk M, Harskamp R. Treatment of coronary artery bypass graft failure. Artery Bypass: IntechOpen; 2013.
  4. Campeau L, Enjalbert M, Lespérance J, Vaislic C, Grondin C, Bourassa M. Atherosclerosis and late closure of aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts: sequential angiographic studies at 2 weeks, 1 year, 5 to 7 years, and 10 to 12 years after surgery. Circulation. 1983;68(3 Pt 2):II1-7.
  5. McKavanagh P, Yanagawa B, Zawadowski G, Cheema A. Management and prevention of saphenous vein graft failure: a review. Cardiology and therapy. 2017; 6(2):203-23.
  6. Kaplan BM, Benzuly KH, Kinn JW, Bowers TR, Tilli FV, Grines CL, et al. Treatment of no‐reflow in degenerated saphenous vein graft interventions: comparison of intracoronary verapamil and nitroglycerin. Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis. 1996; 39(2):113-8.
  7. Baim DS, Carrozza Jr JP. Editorial comment: Understanding the “no‐reflow” problem. Catheterization and cardiovascular diagnosis. 1996; 39(1):7-8.
  8. Morishima I, Sone T, Mokuno S, Taga S, Shimauchi A, Oki Y, et al. Clinical significance of no-reflow phenomenon observed on angiography after successful treatment of acute myocardial infarction with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. American heart journal. 1995; 130(2):239-43.
  9. Lee MS, Park S-J, Kandzari DE, Kirtane AJ, Fearon WF, Brilakis ES, et al. Saphenous vein graft intervention. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2011; 4(8):831-43.
  10. Lefkovits J, Holmes DR, Califf RM, Safian RD, Pieper K, Keeler G, et al. Predictors and sequelae of distal embolization during saphenous vein graft intervention from the CAVEAT-II trial. Circulation. 1995; 92(4):734-40.
  11. de Feyter PJ, van Suylen R-J, de Jaegere PP, Topol EJ, Serruys PW. Balloon angioplasty for the treatment of lesions in saphenous vein bypass grafts. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1993;21(7):1539-49.
  12. Hong MK, Mehran R, Dangas G, Mintz GS, Lansky AJ, Pichard AD, et al. Creatine kinase-MB enzyme elevation following successful saphenous vein graft intervention is associated with late mortality. Circulation. 1999; 100(24):2400-5.
  13. Hong MK, Mehran R, Dangas G, Mintz GS, Lansky A, Kent KM, et al. Are we making progress with percutaneous saphenous vein graft treatment?: A comparison of 1990 to 1994 and 1995 to 1998 results. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2001; 38(1):150-4.
  14. Nguyen T, Pham L, Cheem TH, Douglas JS, Hermiller J, Grines C. Approach to the patient with prior bypass surgery. Journal of interventional cardiology. 2004;17(5):339-46.
  15. Baim DS, Wahr D, George B, Leon MB, Greenberg J, Cutlip DE, et al. Randomized trial of a distal embolic protection device during percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation. 2002; 105(11):1285-90.
  16. Grygier M, Araszkiewicz A, Lesiak M, Grajek S. Intracoronary adenosine administered during aortocoronary vein graft interventions may reduce the incidence of no-reflow phenomenon. A pilot randomised trial. Kardiol Pol. 2014; 72(2):126-33.
  17. Mauri L, Cox D, Hermiller J, Massaro J, Wahr J, Tay SW, et al. The PROXIMAL trial: proximal protection during saphenous vein graft intervention using the Proxis Embolic Protection System: a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2007; 50(15):1442-9.
  18. Hong YJ, Pichard AD, Mintz GS, Kim SW, Lee SY, Kim SY, et al. Outcome of undersized drug-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein graft lesions. The American journal of cardiology. 2010; 105(2):179-85.
  19. Verbin C, White R, Donayre C, Kopchok G. The ideal guidance imaging system for endovascular interventions. The Journal of cardiovascular surgery. 1996; 37(3 Suppl 1):5-9.
  20. Elezi S, Kastrati A, Neumann F-J, Hadamitzky M, Dirschinger J, Schömig A. Vessel size and long-term outcome after coronary stent placement. Circulation. 1998; 98(18):1875-80.
  21. Akiyama T, Moussa I, Reimers B, Ferraro M, Kobayashi Y, Blengino S, et al. Angiographic and clinical outcome following coronary stenting of small vessels: a comparison with coronary stenting of large vessels. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1998; 32(6):1610-8.
  22. Hsieh IC, Chien CC, Chang HJ, Chern MS, Hung KC, Lin FC, et al. Acute and long‐term outcomes of stenting in coronary vessel> 3.0 mm, 3.0–2.5 mm, and< 2.5 mm. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. 2001; 53(3):314-22.
  23. Iakovou I, Dangas G, Mintz GS, Mehran R, Kobayashi Y, Aymong ED, et al. Relation of final lumen dimensions in saphenous vein grafts after stent implantation to outcome. The American journal of cardiology. 2004; 93(8):963-8.
    Circulation. 2002;105:1285–1290
  24. Xenogiannis I, Tajti P, Hall AB, Alaswad K, Rinfret S, Nicholson W, Karmpaliotis D, Mashayekhi K, Furkalo S, Cavalcante JL, Burke MN. Update on cardiac catheterization in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019 Aug 14.
  25. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2018; 72(18):2231-64.
  26. Fitzgibbon GM, Kafka HP, Leach AJ, Keon WJ, Hooper GD, Burton JR. Coronary bypass graft fate and patient outcome: angiographic follow-up of 5,065 grafts related to survival and reoperation in 1,388 patients during 25 years. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996; 28:616-26.
  27. Tatoulis J, Buxton BF, Fuller JA. Patencies of 2127 arterial to coronary conduits over 15 years. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004; 77:93-101.
  28. Cameron AA, Davis KB, Rogers WJ. Recurrence of angina after coronary artery bypass surgery: predictors and prognosis (CASS Registry). Coronary Artery Surgery Study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1995; 26:895-9.
  29. Hsieh IC, Chien CC, Chang HJ, Chern MS, Hung KC, Lin FC, et al. Acute and long‐term outcomes of stenting in coronary vessel> 3.0 mm, 3.0–2.5 mm, and< 2.5 mm. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. 2001; 53(3):314-22.
  30. Coolong A, Baim DS, Kuntz RE, O’Malley AJ, Marulkar S, Cutlip DE, Popma JJ, Mauri L. CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE. Circulation. 2008 Feb 12; 117(6):790-7.
  31. Iakovou I, Dangas G, Mintz GS, Mehran R, Kobayashi Y, Aymong ED, et al. Relation of final lumen dimensions in saphenous vein grafts after stent implantation to outcome. The American journal of cardiology. 2004; 93(8):963-8.
  32. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, et al. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (2018). Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2018; 72(18):2231-64.
  33. Pepine C, Holmes Jr D. Coronary artery stents. American College of Cardiology. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1996; 28(3):782.
  34. Keeley EC, Velez CA, O’Neill WW, Safian RD. Long-term clinical outcome and predictors of major adverse cardiac events after percutaneous interventions on saphenous vein grafts. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2001; 38(3):659-65.
  35. Iavouvau I, Dangas G, Mintz GS, et al. Relation of final lumen dimensions in saphenous vein grafts after stent implantation to outcome. Am I Cardiol. 2004; 93:963-968.
  36. Topol EJ, Teirstein PS. Bypass Graft Intervention.Textbook of inteventional cardiology, 8th edition.Philadelphia, Elsevier, 2020, 447-460.
  37. Paul TK, Bhatheja S, Panchal HB, Zheng S, Banerjee S, Rao SV, et al. Outcomes of saphenous vein graft intervention with and without embolic protection device: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017; 10(12):e005538.
  38. Brennan JM, Al-Hejily W, Dai D, Shaw RE, Trilesskaya M, Rao SV, et al. Three-year outcomes associated with embolic protection in saphenous vein graft intervention: results in 49 325 senior patients in the Medicare-linked National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2015; 8(3):e001403.
  39. Baim DS, Wahr D, George B, et al. Randomized Trial of a Distal Embolic Protection Device During Percutaneous Intervention of Saphenous Vein Aorto-Coronary Bypass Grafts. Circulation. 2002; 105:1285–1290
  40. Mehilli J, Pache J, Abdel-Wahab M, Schulz S, Byrne RA, Tiroch K, Hausleiter J, Seyfarth M, Ott I, Ibrahim T, Fusaro M. Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft lesions (ISAR-CABG): a randomised controlled superiority trial. The Lancet. 2011 Sep 17; 378(9796):1071-8.
  41. Kheiri B, Osman M, Abdalla A, Ahmed S, Bachuwa G, Hassan M. The short- and long-term outcomes of percutaneous intervention with drug-eluting stent vs bare-metal stent in saphenous vein graft disease: An updated meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials. Clin Cardiol. 2018; 41(5):685‐692. doi:10.1002/clc.22908
Iranian Heart Journal
Volume 23, Issue 1
January 2022
Pages 85-94

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics