Javier A Valle1,2, Thomas J Glorioso1, Katherine B Schuetze3, Gary K Grunwald4, Ehrin J Armstrong1,2, Stephen W Waldo1,2. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center, Aurora, CO (J.A.V., T.J.G., E.J.A., S.W.W.). 2. University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora (J.A.V., E.J.A., S.W.W.). 3. CardioVascular Institute of North Colorado, Greeley (K.B.S.). 4. University of Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora (G.K.G).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend use of embolic protection devices during percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein grafts, but the use of these devices in contemporary practice is unclear. We thus sought to evaluate the patient characteristics and clinical outcomes associated with embolic protection device use during contemporary saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified patients undergoing isolated saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System from January 2008 to June 2017. Patient and procedural characteristics associated with embolic protection device use were assessed, as well as unmeasured site variation. A propensity-matched cohort was constructed to compare outcomes at 30 days, including unsuccessful intervention, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and death. We identified 7266 vein graft interventions, and embolic protection was used in 37.9% of cases, with a significant decline over time ( P=0.001) that was most pronounced from 2014 to 2017 ( P<0.001). There was significant institutional variation in the use of embolic protection, with a 15.50 (95% credible interval, 9.21-29.71)-fold difference in odds of device use by changing facilities independent of patient or procedural factors. Use of embolic protection was associated with reduced risk of unsuccessful intervention (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% credible interval, 0.17-0.42) and 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% credible interval, 0.36-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Use of embolic protection is decreasing with time and occurs in less than half of vein graft interventions. There is significant site variation in the use of embolic protection independent of patient characteristics, suggesting opportunities for the development of uniform practices to improve outcomes among those undergoing saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend use of embolic protection devices during percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein grafts, but the use of these devices in contemporary practice is unclear. We thus sought to evaluate the patient characteristics and clinical outcomes associated with embolic protection device use during contemporary saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified patients undergoing isolated saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System from January 2008 to June 2017. Patient and procedural characteristics associated with embolic protection device use were assessed, as well as unmeasured site variation. A propensity-matched cohort was constructed to compare outcomes at 30 days, including unsuccessful intervention, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and death. We identified 7266 vein graft interventions, and embolic protection was used in 37.9% of cases, with a significant decline over time ( P=0.001) that was most pronounced from 2014 to 2017 ( P<0.001). There was significant institutional variation in the use of embolic protection, with a 15.50 (95% credible interval, 9.21-29.71)-fold difference in odds of device use by changing facilities independent of patient or procedural factors. Use of embolic protection was associated with reduced risk of unsuccessful intervention (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% credible interval, 0.17-0.42) and 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% credible interval, 0.36-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Use of embolic protection is decreasing with time and occurs in less than half of vein graft interventions. There is significant site variation in the use of embolic protection independent of patient characteristics, suggesting opportunities for the development of uniform practices to improve outcomes among those undergoing saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention.
Authors: Frans J Beerkens; Bimmer E Claessen; Marielle Mahan; Mario F L Gaudino; Derrick Y Tam; José P S Henriques; Roxana Mehran; George D Dangas Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 32.419