Literature DB >> 21328679

Safety and efficacy of drug eluting stents compared with bare metal stents for saphenous vein graft interventions: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies comprising 7,994 patients.

Abdul Hakeem1, Tarek Helmy, Siddharth Munsif, Sabha Bhatti, Reza Mazraeshahi, Mehmet Cilingiroglu, Mohamed Effat, Massoud Leesar, Imran Arif.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions remain amongst the most challenging lesions for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It is unknown whether drug eluting stents (DES) are superior to bare metal stents (BMS) for such lesions. Our objective is to determine the safety and efficacy of DES compared with BMS for SVG lesions by performing a meta-analysis of clinical trials and observational studies. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings, and internet-based resources of clinical trials. STUDY SELECTION: Studies comparing DES vs. BMS for SVG lesions with at least>30 patients in each study reporting the outcomes of interest [death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis (ST), and the composite of death, TVR and MI (major adverse cardiac events; MACE)] with at least 6 months clinical follow-up. The primary outcome of interest was death.
RESULTS: Two randomized trials, one subgroup analysis of a randomized trial and 26 observational studies comprising a total of 7,994 patients (4,187 patients in DES and 3,807 patients in BMS group) were included in the analysis. Mean follow-up duration was 21±11 months (6-48 months). In the overall population, MACE events were 19% in DES and 28% in BMS with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.7 (0.6, 0.8) P<0.00001. This effect of MACE was sustained in studies with >2 years follow-up with RR of 0.77 (0.65, 0.91) P=0.003. Death rate was 7.8% in DES and 9% in BMS with a RR of 0.82 (0.7, 0.97) P=0.02. MI rate was 5.7% in DES and 7.6% in BMS with RR of 0.72 (0.57, 0.91) P=0.007. TVR was 12% in DES and 17% in BMS with RR of 0.71 (0.59, 0.85) P=0.0002. ST was 1% in DES and 1.7 % in BMS RR of 0.61 (0.35, 1.06) P=0.08. Specifically in randomized controlled trials, DES were associated with no significant differences in overall mortality [RR=1.97; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17-23; P=0.58] or MI (RR=1.24; 95% CI, 0.3-5.5; P=0.78) compared with BMS.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, DES may be considered as a safe and efficacious option for the percutaneous intervention of SVG lesions.
Copyright © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21328679     DOI: 10.1002/ccd.22720

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv        ISSN: 1522-1946            Impact factor:   2.692


  6 in total

Review 1.  An update on coronary bypass graft intervention.

Authors:  Debabrata Dash
Journal:  Heart Asia       Date:  2014-03-06

2.  Current State of the Art in Approaches to Saphenous Vein Graft Interventions.

Authors:  Michael Lee; Jeremy Kong
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2017-09

3.  Percutaneous coronary intervention strategies and prognosis for graft lesions following coronary artery bypass grafting.

Authors:  Yin Liu; Xiujun Zhou; Hua Jiang; Mingdong Gao; Lin Wang; Yutian Shi; Jing Gao
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 2.447

4.  Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions within coronary artery bypass grafts.

Authors:  Rafał Januszek; Zbigniew Siudak; Artur Dziewierz; Tomasz Rakowski; Dariusz Dudek; Stanisław Bartuś
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 3.318

Review 5.  Review of risk factors, treatment, and prevention of saphenous vein graft disease after coronary artery bypass grafting.

Authors:  Jing Gao; Yin Liu; Yu-Ming Li
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2018-09-04       Impact factor: 1.671

6.  Long term outcomes of saphaneous vein graft intervention in elderly patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft.

Authors:  Ji-Hong Wang; Wei Liu; Xin Du; Chang-Sheng Ma; Xue-Si Wu
Journal:  J Geriatr Cardiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.327

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.