In-hospital outcomes and usage of embolic protection devices in percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary artery bypass grafts: Insights from a Japanese nationwide registry.
J-PCI
embolic protection device
graft vessel
nationwide coronary intervention registry
saphenous vein graft
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
revised:
09
02
2021
received:
26
08
2020
accepted:
27
03
2021
pubmed:
17
4
2021
medline:
21
10
2021
entrez:
16
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We evaluated the in-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for bypass graft vessels (GV-PCI) compared with those of PCI for native vessels (NV-PCI) using data from the Japanese nationwide coronary intervention registry. We included PCI patients (N = 748,229) registered between January 2016 and December 2018 from 1,123 centers. We divided patients into three groups: GV-PCI (n = 2,745); NV-PCI with a prior coronary artery bypass graft (pCABG) (n = 23,932); and NV-PCI without pCABG (n = 721,552). GV-PCI implementation was low, and most cases of PCI in pCABG patients were performed in native vessels (89.7%) in contemporary Japanese practice. The risk profile of patients with pCABG was higher than that of those without pCABG. Consequently, GV-PCI patients had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality than NV-PCI patients without pCABG after adjusting for covariates (odds ratio [OR] 2.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.66-3.36, p < .001). Of note, embolic protection devices (EPDs) were used in 18% (n = 383) of PCIs for saphenous vein grafts (SVG-PCI) with a significant variation in its use among institutions (number of PCI: hospitals that had never used an EPD vs. EPD used one or more times = 240 vs. 345, p < .001). The EPDs used in the SVG-PCI group had a significantly lower prevalence of the slow-flow phenomenon after adjusting for covariates (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.91, p = .04). GV-PCI is associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. EDP use in SVG-PCI was associated with a low rate of the slow-flow phenomenon. The usage of EPDs during SVG-PCI is low, with a significant variation among institutions.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E356-E364Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Lee MS, Park SJ, Kandzari DE, et al. Saphenous vein graft intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(8):831-843.
Foster ED, Fisher LD, Kaiser GC, Myers WO. Comparison of operative mortality and morbidity for initial and repeat coronary artery bypass grafting: the coronary artery surgery study (CASS) registry experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 1984;38(6):563-570.
Morrison DA, Sethi G, Sacks J, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus repeat bypass surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia: AWESOME randomized trial and registry experience with post-CABG patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40(11):1951-1954.
Brilakis ES, Rao SV, Banerjee S, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in native arteries versus bypass grafts in prior coronary artery bypass grafting patients: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(8):844-850.
Brilakis ES, O'Donnell CI, Penny W, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in native coronary arteries versus bypass grafts in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery: insights from the veterans affairs clinical assessment, reporting, and tracking program. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(9):884-893.
Mavroudis CA, Kotecha T, Chehab O, Hudson J, Rakhit RD. Superior long term outcome associated with native vessel versus graft vessel PCI following secondary PCI in patients with prior CABG. Int J Cardiol. 2017;228:563-569.
Al Suwaidi J, Velianou JL, Berger PB, et al. Primary percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with acute myocardial infarction and prior coronary artery bypass grafting. Am Heart J. 2001;142(3):452-459.
Varghese I, Samuel J, Banerjee S, Brilakis ES. Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in native coronary arteries vs. bypass grafts in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2009;10(2):103-109.
Welsh RC, Granger CB, Westerhout CM, et al. Prior coronary artery bypass graft patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(3):343-351.
Iqbal J, Kwok CS, Kontopantelis E, et al. Outcomes following primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with previous coronary artery bypass surgery. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(4):e003151.
Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation. 2011;124(23):e574-651.
Brennan JM, Al-Hejily W, Dai D, 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. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(3):e001403.
Paul TK, Bhatheja S, Panchal HB, et al. Outcomes of saphenous vein graft intervention with and without embolic protection device: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(12):e005538.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for coronary heart disease: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(7):569-572.
Mehta SK, Frutkin AD, Milford-Beland S, et al. Utilization of distal embolic protection in saphenous vein graft interventions (an analysis of 19,546 patients in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2007;100(7):1114-1118.
Lee M, Kong J. Current state of the art in approaches to saphenous vein graft interventions. Interv Cardiol (London, England). 2017;12(2):85-91.
Valle JA, Glorioso TJ, Schuetze KB, Grunwald GK, Armstrong EJ, Waldo SW. Contemporary use of embolic protection devices during saphenous vein graft intervention. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(5):e007636.
Shoaib A, Kinnaird T, Curzen N, et al. Outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention in saphenous vein grafts with and without embolic protection devices. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(22):2286-2295.
Inohara T, Kohsaka S, Yamaji K, et al. Impact of institutional and operator volume on short-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the Japanese nationwide registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(9):918-927.
Kohsaka S, Miyata H, Ueda I, et al. An international comparison of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a collaborative study of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) and Japan cardiovascular database-Keio interhospital cardiovascular studies (JCD-KiCS). Am Heart J. 2015;170(6):1077-1085.
Inohara T, Kohsaka S, Miyata H, et al. Performance and validation of the U.S. NCDR acute kidney injury prediction model in Japan. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(14):1715-1722.
JCS Joint Working Group. Guidelines for elective percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease (JCS 2011) published in 2012-digest version. Circ J. 2013;77(6):1590-1607.
Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, et al. A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(9):604-612.
Inohara T, Kohsaka S, Yamaji K, et al. Risk stratification model for in-hospital death in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a nationwide retrospective cohort study in Japan. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026683.
Brilakis ES, Wang TY, Rao SV, et al. Frequency and predictors of drug-eluting stent use in saphenous vein bypass graft percutaneous coronary interventions: a report from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data CathPCI registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3(10):1068-1073.
Brodie BR, Wilson H, Stuckey T, et al. Outcomes with drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft intervention results from the STENT (strategic transcatheter evaluation of new therapies) group. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(11):1105-1112.
Kazuhiko N, Tsutomu Y, Hisayoshi F. Assessment of coronary intervention in Japan from the Japanese coronary intervention study (JCIS) group. Circ J. 2004;68(3):181-185.
Hess CN, Lopes RD, Gibson CM, et al. Saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass surgery: insights from PREVENT IV. Circulation. 2014;130(17):1445-1451.
Bourassa MG, Fisher LD, Campeau L, Gillespie MJ, McConney M, Lespérance J. Long-term fate of bypass grafts: the coronary artery surgery study (CASS) and Montreal heart institute experiences. Circulation. 1985;72(6 Pt 2):V71-8.
Lawrie GM, Morris GC, Chapman DW, Winters WL, Lie JT. Patterns of patency of 596 vein grafts up to seven years after aorta-coronary bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1977;73(3):443-448.
Fremes SE, Levinton C, Naylor CD, Chen E, Christakis GT, Goldman BS. Optimal antithrombotic therapy following aortocoronary bypass: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1993;7(4):169-180.
Jeroudi OM, Alomar ME, Michael TT, et al. Prevalence and management of coronary chronic total occlusions in a tertiary veterans affairs hospital. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;84(4):637-643.
Redfors B, Généreux P, Witzenbichler B, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein graft. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10(5):e004953.
Savage MP, Douglas JS Jr, Fischman DL, et al. Stent placement compared with balloon angioplasty for obstructed coronary bypass grafts. Saphenous vein De novo trial investigators. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(11):740-747.
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(11):1285-1290.
Stone GW, Rogers C, Hermiller J, et al. Randomized comparison of distal protection with a filter-based catheter and a balloon occlusion and aspiration system during percutaneous intervention of diseased saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation. 2003;108(5):548-553.
Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87-165.
Okabe T, Lindsay J, Torguson R, et al. Can direct stenting in selected saphenous vein graft lesions be considered an alternative to percutaneous intervention with a distal protection device? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72(6):799-803.
Niccoli G, Belloni F, Cosentino N, et al. Case-control registry of excimer laser coronary angioplasty versus distal protection devices in patients with acute coronary syndromes due to saphenous vein graft disease. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112(10):1586-1591.