In patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery, it is unknown whether better results may be obtained with percutaneous interventions of grafts versus native arteries. The clinical outcomes in 84 patients undergoing percutaneous interventions of either grafts (n = 31) or native arteries (n = 53) were compared. Procedural success rate was 95.3% (96.8% in the graft group vs 94.4% in the native group, P = .3). Mean follow-up was 19 ± 7 months. The incidence of major adverse events was 14.2% (12.9% vs 15.1% in the graft and native groups, respectively; P = .8), mortality rate was 3.5% (6.4% vs 1.8% in the graft and native groups, respectively; P = .3), and target-lesion revascularization was performed in 4.7% (6.4% vs 3.7% in the graft and native groups, respectively, P = .6). In conclusion, both graft or native percutaneous interventions were similar for immediate and midterm clinical outcomes. The relatively low risk need for target-lesion revascularization obtained with both strategies is encouraging.
Hwang MH, Meadows WR, Palac RT, et al. Progression of native coronary artery disease at 10 years: insights from a randomized study of medical versus surgical therapy for angina. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;16:1066-1070.
2.
Campeau L., Lesperance J., Hermann J., et al. Loss of improvement of angina between 1 and 7 years after aortocoronary bypass surgery: correlations with changes in vein grafts and in coronary arteries . Circulation. 1979;60:1-5.
3.
Loop FD, Whitlow PLReoperation for coronary atherosclerosis. Ann Surg. 1990;212:378-386.
4.
Lytle BW, Loop FD, Taylor PC, et al. The effect of coronary reoperation on the survival of patients with stenoses in saphenous vein to coronary bypass grafts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1993;105:605-614.
5.
Mathew V., Clavell AL, Lennon RJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery: changes in patient characteristics and outcome during two decades. Am J Med. 2000;108:127-135.
6.
Bourassa MG, Detre KM, Johnston JM, for the Investigators of the NHLBI Dynamic registry. Effect of prior revascularization on outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention: NHLBI Dynamic Registry . Eur Heart J. 2002;23:1546-1555.
7.
Garzon P., Sheppard R., Eisenberg MJ, et al; for the ROSETTA Investigators.Comparison of event and procedure rates following percutaneous trasluminal coronary angioplasty in patients with and without previous coronary artery bypass surgery (the ROSETTA registry). Am J Cardiol. 2002;89:251-256.
8.
Mathew V., Berger PB, Lennon RJ, et al. Comparison of percutaneous interventions for unstable angina pectoris in patients with and without previous coronary artery bypass grafting . Am J Cardiol. 2000;86:931-937.
9.
Lansky AJ, Dangas G., Mehran R., et al. Quantitative angiographic methods for appropriate end-point analysis, edge-effect evaluation, and prediction of recurrent restenosis after coronary brachytherapy with gamma irradiation. J Am Coll Cardiol . 2002;39:274-280.
10.
Smith SC Jr, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW Jr, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 guideline update for percutaneous coronary intervention: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to update the 2001 guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol.2006;47:e1-e121.
11.
Iakovou I., Schmidt T., Bonizzoni E., et al. Incidence, predictors and outcome of thrombosis after successful implantation of drug-eluting stents. JAMA. 2005;293:2126-2130.
12.
Weintraub WS , Jones EL, Morris DC, et al. Outcome of reoperative coronary artery bypass surgery versus coronary angioplasty after previous bypass surgery. Circulation. 1997;95:868-877.
13.
Salam AM, Al Suwaidi J., Holmes DR Jr.Drug-eluting coronary stents. Curr Probl Cardiol. 2006;31:8-119.
14.
Stone GW, Moses JW, Ellis SG, et al. Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:998-1008.
15.
Ge L., Iakovou I., Sangiorgi GM, et al. Treatment of saphenous vein graft lesions with drug-eluting stents: immediate and midterm outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:989-994.
16.
Buch AN, Xue Z., Gevorkian N., et al. Comparison of outcomes between bare metal stents and drug-eluting stents for percutaneous revascularization of internal mammary grafts. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:722-724.
17.
Rao SV, Shaw RE, Brindis RG, et al. Patterns and outcomes of drug-eluting coronary stent use in clinical practice. Am Heart J. 2006;152:321-326.
18.
Gogo PB Jr, Dauerman HL, Mulgund J., et al, for the CRUSADE Investigators.Changes in patterns of coronary revascularization strategies for the patients with acute coronary syndromes (from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative). Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1222-1226.
19.
Camenzid E. , Steg G., Wijns W.Stent thrombosis late after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents. A cause of concern. Circulation.2007;115:1440-1455.
20.
Pfisterer M. , Brunner-La Rocca HP, Buser PT, et al; BASKET-LATE Investigators.Late clinical benefits after clopidogrel discontinuation may limit the benefit of drug-eluting stents: an observational study of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:2584-2591.
21.
Pinto Slottow TL, Waksman R.Overview of the 2006 Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Panel Meeting on drug-eluting stent thrombosis . Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;69:1064-1074.
22.
Maisel WHUnanswered questions-drug-eluting stents and the risk of late thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356:981-984.
