• Users Online: 271
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 5

Early and midterm major adverse cardiac events in patient with saphenous vein graft using direct stenting or embolic protection device stenting


1 Cardiac Electrophysiology Research Center, Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran
2 Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran
3 Cardiovascular Intervention Research Center, Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran
4 Department of Intervention, 502 Military Hospital, Tehran, IR Iran

Correspondence Address:
Mohsen Maadani
Cardiovascular Intervention Research Center, Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research Center, Vali-e-Asr St., Niayesh Blvd, Tehran
IR Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.5812/cardiovascmed.13012

Get Permissions

Background: The treatment of an occluded saphenous vein graft (SVG) with percutaneous coronary intervention may encounter major adverse cardiac events (MACE). MACE rates have been reduced significantly by using the embolic protection device (EPD). Objectives: The aim of this study was to clarify the risks and the benefits of embolic protection devices. Patients and Methods: In a prospective, non-randomized observational study, patients aged 33 to 85 years old who underwent elective percutaneous coronary intervention due to SVG stenosis at our tertiary care center were enrolled between 2009 and 2011. The incidence rates of adverse events, including MACE, were obtained during the patients' hospitalization and at 30-day and 6-month follow-up. MACE included death, Q-wave and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, in-stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization. Results: From 150 patients enrolled to the study, 128 (85.3%) patients underwent direct stenting and the rest underwent the EPD procedure. In-hospital MACE occurred in 17.2% of the patients in the direct stenting group versus only 9.1% in the EPD group (P = 0.530). MACE incidence was gradually increased at one and 6-month follow-up periods in the direct stenting group (19.5% and 21.9%, respectively), and remained unchanged in the EPD group (9.1% at six-month follow-up). Multivariate logistic regression model showed that the stenting procedure type could not predict early and midterm MACE with the presence of baseline characteristics as cofounders. Conclusions: Despite the considerable lower early and midterm MACE rates, numerically following the EPD procedure compared to direct stenting, the difference in the MACE rates between the two groups was not significant.


[PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed679    
    Printed20    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded76    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal