Percutaneous Treatment of Saphenous Vein Bypass Graft Obstructions
2003; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 107; Issue: 18 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/01.cir.0000069360.38675.22
ISSN1524-4539
Autores Tópico(s)Antiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
ResumoHomeCirculationVol. 107, No. 18Percutaneous Treatment of Saphenous Vein Bypass Graft Obstructions Free AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBPercutaneous Treatment of Saphenous Vein Bypass Graft ObstructionsA Continuing Obstinate Problem P.J. de Feyter, MD P.J. de FeyterP.J. de Feyter From Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Originally published13 May 2003https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000069360.38675.22Circulation. 2003;107:2284–2286Percutaneous coronary intervention has made great strides since its inception and is nowadays the most frequently used modality for revascularization of coronary obstructions. Remaining problems are the treatment of chronic total occlusions, the occurrence of in-stent restenosis (although this may now be resolved, albeit not completely, by drug-eluting stents), and lastly the treatment of saphenous vein bypass graft (SVBG) obstructions.See p 2331Percutaneous treatment of SVBG obstructions is notoriously difficult because it often results in inadequate dilatation, a high likelihood of distal embolization associated with mortality and significant morbidity, and a high restenosis rate.1 The difficulties in the percutaneous treatment of SVBG lesions are largely related to the extent and severity of vein graft atherosclerotic disease, which progresses unrelentingly over time, such that 10 years after bypass operation almost 50% of the vein grafts are occluded.Atherosclerosis of the vein graft is associated with large, soft, and friable plaques containing necrotic debris, cholesterol crystals, foam cells, and blood elements, and there is often overlying thrombotic material, particularly in older degenerated grafts. Occlusive obstructions are often extended over a long segment of the graft, while the remainder of the graft is diffusely diseased.2 Instrumentation of these friable lesions carries a high risk of distal embolization with subsequent myocardial necrosis. Distal embolization is of great concern because there appears to be no adequate treatment, and it must therefore be prevented.Percutaneous Treatment of Nonocclusive SVBG ObstructionsPercutaneous treatment of SVBG lesions was attempted in the early days of balloon angioplasty. In selected patients with focal lesions, the periprocedural death rate was <1% and the myocardial infarction (MI) rate <4%, predominantly caused by distal embolization of friable material. The overall restenosis rate was approximately 40% but may have been as high as 60% when the lesion was located at the aorta-bypass anastomosis site.1The 5-year follow-up was poor, and although 74% of the patients were still alive, only 26% were alive and event free with no MI or repeat revascularization.1 Other devices, including directional atherectomy, transluminal extraction, and laser angioplasty, offered no better results, but stent implantation and newer adjunctive medications appeared to improve the immediate and long-term outcomes.3,4 In a recent randomized study, stenting for focal SVBG lesions was shown to be superior to balloon angioplasty, with increased procedural success (97% versus 86%; P<0.01), reduced major in-hospital complications (6% versus 11%; P=0.163), reduced restenosis rate (37% versus 46%; P=0.24), and better 1-year event-free survival (73% versus 58%; P=0.03).5However, despite the use of stenting, SVBG interventions are still associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. Keeley et al6 reported the results of a single-center experience with treatment of 1142 SVBG lesions in 1062 patients. Interventional devices included balloon angioplasty (42%), atherectomy devices and excimer laser (16%), and stenting (42%). In-hospital death occurred in 8%, Q-wave MI in 2%, and CABG in 3% of the cases. After 3±1 years of follow-up, the event-free survival rate was 46%, and death occurred in 9%, Q-wave MI in 9%, and target vessel revascularization in 36%.Piana et al7 reported that a second revascularization was necessary in about 50% of the patients, mainly (in 80%) because of disease progression at other sites in grafts and native coronaries so that after 2 years the event-free survival rate was 57%.de Jaegere et al8 reported a 5-year survival rate of 83±5% and a major event-free survival rate (free from infarction or repeat revascularization) of 30±7%.Percutaneous Treatment of (Sub)acute Occluded Grafts in Patients With an Acute Coronary SyndromeEach year, 3% of patients with a previous CABG develop an acute MI, of which about 30% to 50% are due to an acute occlusion of a vein graft. Thrombolysis of the infarct-related vein graft has resulted in a low success rate.The Global Use of Strategies To Open occluded coronary arteries I (GUSTO-I) trial has demonstrated that in patients with an acute infarction, thrombolysis of culprit occluded vein grafts resulted in a TIMI-3 flow of only 31.7%.9 The outcomes of primary balloon angioplasty, too, were disappointing. Kahn et al10 reported a success rate of 85% (41 of 48 patients) with a mortality rate of 10%. The Second Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Trial (PAMI-2) identified 32 patients with an infarct-related bypass graft treated with primary balloon angioplasty. The TIMI-3 flow achieved was 70%, and the in-hospital mortality, re-MI, and repeat revascularization rates were 9.4%, 3.1%, and 13%, respectively. The 6-month mortality rate was 22.6%, and repeat MI occurred in 7.3% of patients.11 A Mayo Clinic study involving 63 patients with primary balloon angioplasty of an acutely occluded vein graft revealed rates of 1-year mortality, repeat MI, repeat procedure, and any major adverse cardiac event (MACE) of 30%, 26%, 20%, and 52.4%, respectively.12 The high adverse event rates could be attributed to the high-risk baseline characteristics of these patients, in combination with the unfavorable lesion characteristics of occluded vein graft, consisting predominantly of extensive thrombus and atherosclerosis with limited distal runoff.These unfavorable results have prompted the search for alternative, better techniques, such as coronary ultrasound thrombolysis (CUT), which showed promising results in the treatment of thrombus-rich lesions in SVBG in 20 patients with an acute coronary syndrome. In 13 patients, the procedure was successful; another patient suffered a non–Q-wave MI, and distal embolization was noted in 1 patient.13The efficacy of CUT was further tested in a multicenter randomized controlled trial: ATLAS (Acolysis during Treatment of Lesions Affecting Saphenous Vein Bypass Grafts), which appears in the present issue of Circulation.14 One hundred eighty-one patients were randomly assigned to receive CUT (92 patients) or abciximab (89) followed by percutaneous coronary intervention. Included were patients with either (1) an acute coronary syndrome and angiographic or clinical evidence of thrombus or (2) acute occlusion of a culprit vein graft. Excluded were patients with inability to cross the total occlusion with a guidewire. The trial was prematurely stopped because of a significantly higher incidence of adverse clinical events in the patients assigned to the CUT arm. The primary end point—consisting of a combination of minimum lumen diameter <30%, TIMI-3 flow, and freedom from MACE at 30 days—was achieved in the CUT arm in 53.8% versus 73.1% in the abciximab arm (P=0.014). Angiographic success was achieved in 63% of the patients in the CUT arm versus 82% in the abciximab arm. The occurrence of MACE at 30 days, non–Q-wave MI, and Q-wave MI in the CUT group versus the abciximab group was 25% versus 12% (P=0.036), 19.6% versus 7.9% (P=0.03), and 5.4% versus 2.2% (P=NS), respectively. It was notable that device failure or malfunction of the CUT device occurred in 14 patients, which could partly explain the lower success rate and possibly be responsible for the higher adverse event rate in this group. These disappointing results may most likely be explained by clogging of the microvasculature due to the fragmentation of the thrombus by CUT into smaller particles. The investigators correctly concluded that CUT should not be used during percutaneous coronary intervention of thrombus-containing grafts.Percutaneous Treatment of Chronically Occluded Vein GraftsPercutaneous treatment of chronically occluded vein grafts has a bad reputation of low success and high complication rates and a poor long-term prognosis. In fact, our initial results were so disappointing that we, in utter dismay, believed that this disease was "a challenge that should be resisted."1These disappointing results were also reported by other investigators, with a success rate of 71% to 73% and a major adverse in-hospital event rate of 4% increasing to 13% at 30 days. The distal embolization rate was around 11%, and creatinine kinase elevation occurred in up to 43%. The 3-year survival rate was 72% to 80%, and the 3-year event-free survival rate was as low as 26% to 34%. Repeat angiography demonstrated an occlusion/restenosis rate of at least 44% to even 73%.15,16Pretreatment with 24-hour infusion of urokinase followed by balloon angioplasty did not really improve the acute results, with an initial patency of 69%, a mortality of 6.5%, a Q-wave MI of 5.0%, emergency surgery of 4%, stroke 3%, and creatinine kinase enzyme elevation in 17%, while repeat angiography showed a 60% restenosis rate.17 So far, no percutaneous modality has demonstrated satisfactory results in the treatment of a chronically occluded vein graft.Outcome of Current Percutaneous Treatment Modalities and Adjunctive TreatmentAdjunctive treatment with platelet GP IIb/IIIa inhibition failed to improve the outcome of percutaneous bypass graft interventions, but on the contrary, it was associated with a higher incidence of major bleedings (6.8% versus 1.4% in placebo) and minor bleedings (14.9% versus 8.1% placebo).18 Apparently the overwhelming amount and composition of embolized material does render these agents ineffective. Procedural complications are predominantly attributable to distal embolization of friable material, and it seems logical that embolic protection devices, either aspiration or filter capture devices, should prevent this. The Safer study, a multicenter randomized trial, clearly demonstrated the superiority of the GuardWire distal protection device (Medtronic, Inc) compared with no protection device, with a 42% relative reduction of MACE from 16.5% to 9.6% (P=0.004), which was predominantly driven by a reduction of periprocedural MIs (14.7% to 8.6%) at 30 days.19 A recent large, prospective, randomized comparison of stent implantation with or without thromboatherectomy with the X-sizer in thrombotic native coronary arteries or diseased saphenous vein grafts (72%) demonstrated a significant reduction of the occurrence of large MIs with the use of the X-sizer.20Yet, even with the introduction of stents and distal protection devices, the in-hospital and short-term outcomes of percutaneous treatment of SVBG obstructions remains unsatisfactory (see Table). These poor results are partly due to procedural complications and partly due to the fact that symptomatic post-CABG patients have a higher incidence of cardiovascular risk factors, comorbidity, and more extensive atherosclerotic disease. The long-term prognosis is poor because once saphenous vein graft disease becomes clinically evident, there is usually progression of disease not only in the treated graft but also in other grafts and native coronary arteries. Given the poor outcomes of percutaneous treatment of SVBG lesions, which revascularization treatment should we recommend to these patients? First of all, avoid percutaneous treatment of SVBG lesions, and, if possible, attempt to treat the native bypassed coronary arteries even if these arteries are proximally occluded.Second, seriously consider the alternative of reoperation, which, although associated with a higher mortality and morbidity and less effective relief of angina, may even be the first choice if arterial grafts can be used.Third, if the decision is made for percutaneous treatment of SVBG lesion, always use a distal protection device and stent implantation. The use of covered stents may reduce the distal embolization rate, and the use of drug-eluting stents may decrease the high restenosis rate, but we have to await significant studies to confirm this. Irrespective of the choice of revascularization, these patients should receive intense medication with aspirin, clopidogrel, lipid-lowering agent, and possibly ACE inhibitors, in a desperate attempt to improve their dismal long-term prognosis.Research should continue to explore more durable revascularization strategies.Outcomes of Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Treatment of SVBG LesionsPooled Analysis (Roffi et al18)Safer (Baim et al19)Balloon (n=450)Stent (n=157)Stent (n=406)Guardwire (n=395)30 Days Death/MI, %≈13.0≈13.016.59.66 Months Death/MI, %≈19.0≈19.0…… Repeat revascularization, %2621……The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.FootnotesCorrespondence to Prof Dr P.J. de Feyter, Thoraxcenter, Room Bd 410, Erasmus Medical Centre, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail [email protected] References 1 de Feyter PJ, van Suylen RJ, de Jaegere PP, et al. Balloon angioplasty for the treatment of lesions in saphenous vein bypass grafts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993; 21: 1539–1549.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Motwani JG, Topol EJ. Aortocoronary saphenous vein graft disease: pathogenesis, predisposition, and prevention. Circulation. 1998; 97: 916–931.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 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.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Hong MK, Mehran R, Dangas G, et al. Are we making progress with percutaneous saphenous vein graft treatment? A comparison of 1990 to 1994 and 1995 to 1998 results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38: 150–154.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 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: 740–747.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Keeley EC, Velez CA, O'Neill WW, et al. Long-term clinical outcome and predictors of major adverse cardiac events after percutaneous interventions on saphenous vein grafts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38: 659–665.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Piana RN, Moscucci M, Cohen DJ, et al. Palmaz-Schatz stenting for treatment of focal vein graft stenosis: immediate results and long-term outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994; 23: 1296–1304.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 de Jaegere PP, van Domburg RT, Feyter PJ, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after stent implantation in saphenous vein grafts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996; 28: 89–96.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Labinaz M, Sketch MH Jr, Ellis SG, et al. Outcome of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery receiving thrombolytic therapy. Am Heart J. 2001; 141: 469–477.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Kahn JK, Rutherford BD, McConahay DR, et al. Usefulness of angioplasty during acute myocardial infarction in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol. 1990; 65: 698–702.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Stone GW, Brodie BR, Griffin JJ, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery treated with primary balloon angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Second Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Trial (PAMI-2) Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 35: 605–611.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 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: 452–459.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Rosenschein U, Gaul G, Erbel R, et al. Percutaneous transluminal therapy of occluded saphenous vein grafts: can the challenge be met with ultrasound thrombolysis? Circulation. 1999; 99: 26–29.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Singh M, Rosenschein U, Ho KLL, et al. Treatment of saphenous vein bypass graft with ultrasound thrombolysis: a randomized study. Circulation. 2003; 107: 2331–2336.LinkGoogle Scholar15 Kahn JK, Rutherford BD, McConahay DR, et al. Initial and long-term outcome of 83 patients after balloon angioplasty of totally occluded bypass grafts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994; 23: 1038–1042.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16 Berger PB, Bell MR, Grill DE, et al. Influence of procedural success on immediate and long-term clinical outcome of patients undergoing percutaneous revascularization of occluded coronary artery bypass vein grafts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996; 28: 1732–1737.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17 Hartmann JR, McKeever LS, O'Neill WW, et al. Recanalization of chronically occluded aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass grafts with long-term, low dose direct infusion of urokinase (ROBUST): a serial trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996; 27: 60–66.MedlineGoogle Scholar18 Roffi M, Mukherjee D, Chew DP, et al. Lack of benefit from intravenous platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibition as adjunctive treatment for percutaneous interventions of aortocoronary bypass grafts: a pooled analysis of five randomized clinical trials. Circulation. 2002; 106: 3063–3067.LinkGoogle Scholar19 Baim DS, Wahr D, George B, et al. Randomized trial of a distal embolic protection device during percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein aorta-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation. 2002; 105: 1285–1290.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 Stone GW, Brodie BR, Griffin JJ, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery treated with primary balloon angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Second Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Trial (PAMI-2) Investigators. Circulation. 2002; 106 (suppl II): 1676.Abstract.Google Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Sinkov M, Kochergin N, Arnt A, Isakov L, Sinkova M and Ganyukov V (2021) Results of percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with coronary artery disease and previous coronary artery bypass grafting, Kardiologiya i serdechno-sosudistaya khirurgiya, 10.17116/kardio202114041237, 14:4, (237), . Mousa A, Zakaria O, Hanbal I, Sultan T, El-Gibaly A, Zakaria M, Nasr M, Bosat B, Sharabi A, Neinaa M, El-Hamid M, Daoud M, Amin M, Odeh A, Alhaieg O, Farhan M, Bubshait M and Al-Mulhim A (2019) Operative management of non-iatrogenic pediatric and adolescence peripheral arterial trauma: An experience from a resource challenged setting, Asian Journal of Surgery, 10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.09.012, 42:7, (761-767), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2019. Mahtta D, Elgendy I, Mahmoud A and Bavry A (2018) Aspiration Catheters and Protection Filters Cardiovascular Thrombus, 10.1016/B978-0-12-812615-8.00017-X, (249-260), . Jeger R and Möbius-Winkler S (2018) Stents in saphenous vein grafts, The Lancet, 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30937-1, 391:10134, (1967-1968), Online publication date: 1-May-2018. Truong H and Shanmugasundaram M (2018) Saphenous vein graft interventions. Is it worth our time?, Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.10.006, 19:8, (903-904), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018. Lin M and Wang J (2016) Successful Revascularization of an LCx CTO Lesion by Retrograde Approach From an Acute Thrombotic SVG Without Protection Device in an ACS Patient, International Heart Journal, 10.1536/ihj.15-328, 57:3, (372-375), . da Silva D, da Costa J, de Castro Filho A, Staico R, Costa R, Moreira A, Siqueira D, Chamié D, Centemero M, Maldonado G, Cano M, Tanajura L, Chaves Á, Feres F, Abizaid A, Sousa A and Sousa J (2015) Desfechos clínicos precoces e tardios após tratamento de enxertos de veia safena com stents MGuard™ vs. stents farmacológicos, Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva, 10.1016/j.rbci.2016.12.002, 23:4, (251-255), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2015. da Silva D, da Costa J, de Castro Filho A, Staico R, Costa R, Moreira A, Siqueira D, Chamié D, Centemero M, Maldonado G, Cano M, Tanajura L, Chaves Á, Feres F, Abizaid A, Sousa A and Sousa J (2015) Early and late clinical outcomes after saphenous vein graft treatment with MGuard TM stents vs. drug-eluting stents, Revista Brasileira de Cardiologia Invasiva (English Edition), 10.1016/j.rbciev.2017.02.007, 23:4, (251-255), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2015. Marmagkiolis K, Grines C and Bilodeau L (2013) Current percutaneous treatment strategies for saphenous vein graft disease, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1002/ccd.24554, 82:3, (406-413), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2013. Buchanan G, Durante A and Chieffo A (2012) Pericardium-covered stent: a reality for coronary interventions of the future?, Interventional Cardiology, 10.2217/ica.12.38, 4:4, (411-418), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2012. Kozak M and Chambers C (2011) Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Kaplan's Cardiac Anesthesia: The Echo Era, 10.1016/B978-1-4377-1617-7.00003-0, (33-73), . Maluenda G, Alfonso F and Pichard A (2011) Percutaneous intervention of a thrombotic-occluded saphenous vein graft successfully treated using the undersized stent approach to prevent distal embolization, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1002/ccd.22732, 78:1, (65-69), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2011. Lee M, Hu P, Aragon J, Shah A, Bhatia R, Jones N, Penny W, French W, Tobis J and Mahmud E (2010) Impact of chronic renal insufficiency on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing saphenous vein graft intervention with drug-eluting stents: A multicenter Southern Californian Registry, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1002/ccd.22479, 76:2, (272-278) Takagi Y, Sugi M, Hanawa K and Shimokawa H (2010) Successful recanalization of chronic total occlusion using retrograde approach in a patient with acute coronary syndrome due to aortosaphenous vein graft occlusion, Journal of Cardiology Cases, 10.1016/j.jccase.2009.10.001, 1:2, (e112-e115), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2010. Al-Lamee R, Ielasi A, Latib A, Godino C, Ferraro M, Arioli F, Mussardo M, Piraino D, Figini F, Carlino M, Montorfano M, Chieffo A and Colombo A (2010) Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes After Percutaneous Recanalization of Chronic Total Saphenous Vein Graft Occlusion Using Modern Techniques, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.08.013, 106:12, (1721-1727), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2010. Lavi S, Ivanov J, Appleby C, Seidelin P, Mackie K, Schwartz L and Džavík V (2009) Selective use of embolic protection devices during saphenous vein grafts interventions: A single-center experience, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1002/ccd.22392, (n/a-n/a) Brilakis E, Lasala J, Cox D, Berger P, Bowman T, Starzyk R and Dawkins K (2010) Outcomes After Implantation of the TAXUS Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent in Saphenous Vein Graft Lesions, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1016/j.jcin.2010.04.012, 3:7, (742-750), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2010. Fiorina C, Meliga E, Chizzola G, Curello S, Tayeh O, Vizzardi E, Dei Cas L and Ettori F (2010) Early experience with a new approach for percutaneous intervention of totally occluded saphenous vein graft: is the flow the best thrombolytic?, EuroIntervention, 10.4244/EIJV6I4A78, 6:4, (461-466), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2010. Fiorina C, Meliga E, Chizzola G, Curello S, Tayeh O, Vizzardi E, Dei Cas L and Ettori F (2010) Early experience with a new approach for percutaneous intervention of totally occluded saphenous vein graft: is the flow the best thrombolytic?, EuroIntervention, 10.4244/EIJ30V6I4A78, 6:4, (461-466), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2010. Shishehbor M, Hawi R, Singh I, Tuzcu E, Bhatt D, Ellis S and Kapadia S (2009) Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents for treating saphenous vein grafts, American Heart Journal, 10.1016/j.ahj.2009.08.003, 158:4, (637-643), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2009. Colombo A, Almagor Y, Gaspar J and Vonderwalde C (2009) The pericardium covered stent (PCS), EuroIntervention, 10.4244/V5I3A61, 5:3, (394-399), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2009. Rutigliano D, Vacca M, Pestrichella V and Contegiacomo G (2009) Use of Proxis for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with totally occluded saphenous vein grafts: an alternative approach, Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine, 10.2459/JCM.0b013e32832e26f8, 10:11, (869-874), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2009. Banerjee S and Brilakis E (2009) Use of the Proxis embolic protection device for guide anchoring and stent delivery during complex saphenous vein graft interventions, Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine, 10.1016/j.carrev.2008.10.002, 10:3, (183-187), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2009. Grow P and Rab S (2008) Percutaneous saphenous vein graft intervention with sequential embolic protection devices: Complementing lesion anatomy with embolic protection device, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1002/ccd.21644, 72:5, (636-640), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2008. Kereiakes D, Turco M, Breall J, Farhat N, Feldman R, McLaurin B, Popma J, Mauri L, Zimetbaum P, Massaro J and Cutlip D (2008) A Novel Filter-Based Distal Embolic Protection Device for Percutaneous Intervention of Saphenous Vein Graft Lesions, JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1016/j.jcin.2008.03.009, 1:3, (248-257), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2008. RUCHIN P, FADDY S, MULLER D, BARON D, ROY P and WILSON S (2007) Clinical Follow-Up of Paclitaxel-Eluting (TAXUS?) Stents for the Treatment of Saphenous Vein Graft Disease, Journal of Interventional Cardiology, 10.1111/j.1540-8183.2007.00268.x, 20:4, (258-264), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2007. Meliga E, García-García H, Kukreja N, Daemen J, Tanimoto S, Ramcharitar S, van Mieghem C, Sianos G, van der Ent M, van der Giessen W, de Feyter P, van Domburg R and Serruys P (2007) Chronic total occlusion treatment in post-CABG patients: Saphenous vein graft versus native vessel recanalization—Long-term follow-up in the drug-eluting stent era, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1002/ccd.21100, 70:1, (21-25), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2007. Vermeersch P, Agostoni P, Verheye S, Van den Heuvel P, Convens C, Van den Branden F and Van Langenhove G (2007) Increased Late Mortality After Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Diseased Saphenous Vein Grafts, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.jacc.2007.05.010, 50:3, (261-267), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2007. Morrison D, Thai H, Goldman S, Felix E and Hernandez J (2006) Percutaneous coronary intervention of or through saphenous vein grafts or internal mammary arteries: The impact of stents, adjunctive pharmacology, and multicomponent distal protection, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1002/ccd.20641, 67:4, (571-579), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2006. Lozano Í, López-Palop R, Pinar E, Saura D, Fuertes J, Rondán J, Suárez E, Valdés M and Morís C (2005) Implante de stent directo en puentes de safena. Resultados inmediatos y a largo plazo, Revista Española de Cardiología, 10.1157/13072474, 58:3, (270-277), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2005. Lee M, Shah A, Aragon J, Jamali A, Dohad S, Kar S and Makkar R (2005) Drug-eluting stenting is superior to bare metal stenting in saphenous vein grafts, Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions, 10.1002/ccd.20498, 66:4, (507-511), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2005. Lozano Í, López-Palop R, Pinar E, Saura D, Fuertes J, Rondán J, Suárez E, Valdés M and Morís C (2005) Direct Stenting in Saphenous Vein Grafts. Immediate and Long-Term Results, Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition), 10.1016/S1885-5857(06)60488-X, 58:3, (270-277), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2005. Kolansky D, Shah A, Mannion T, Glaser R, Hirshfeld J, Wilensky R and Herrmann H (2005) Filterwire™ distal embolic protection device for vein graft stenting: Initial single-center experience, Clinical Cardiology, 10.1002/clc.4960281204, 28:12, (556-560), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2005. May 13, 2003Vol 107, Issue 18 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000069360.38675.22PMID: 12742967 Originally publishedMay 13, 2003 KeywordsEditorialsbypassocclusionveinsPDF download Advertisement
Referência(s)