David P Taggart1, Yulia Gavrilov2, George Krasopoulos3, Cha Rajakaruna4, Joseph Zacharias5, Ravi De Silva6, Keith M Channon7, Thomas Gehrig8, Terrence John Donovan8, Ivar Friedrich9. 1. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom. 2. TechnoSTAT Ltd, Raanana, Israel. 3. Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Blackpool, United Kingdom. 6. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 7. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom. 8. Herzzentrum Trier, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Bruder, Trier, Germany. 9. Herzzentrum Trier, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Bruder, Trier, Germany. Electronic address: i.friedrich@bk-trier.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Little data exist regarding the potential of external stents to mitigate long-term disease progression in saphenous vein grafts. We investigated the effect of external stents on the progression of saphenous vein graft disease. METHODS: A total of 184 patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting, using an internal thoracic artery graft and at least 2 additional saphenous vein grafts, were enrolled in 14 European centers. One saphenous vein graft was randomized to an external stent, and 1 nonstented saphenous vein graft served as the control. The primary end point was the saphenous vein graft Fitzgibbon patency scale assessed by angiography, and the secondary end point was saphenous vein graft intimal hyperplasia assessed by intravascular ultrasound in a prespecified subgroup at 2 years. RESULTS: Angiography was completed in 128 patients and intravascular ultrasound in the entire prespecified cohort (n = 51) at 2 years. Overall patency rates were similar between stented and nonstented saphenous vein grafts (78.3% vs 82.2%, P = .43). However, the Fitzgibbon patency scale was significantly improved in stented versus nonstented saphenous vein grafts, with Fitzgibbon patency scale I, II, and III rates of 66.7% versus 54.9%, 27.8% versus 34.3%, and 5.5% versus 10.8%, respectively (odds ratio, 2.02; P = .03). Fitzgibbon patency scale was inversely related to saphenous vein graft minimal lumen diameter, with Fitzgibbon patency scale I, II, and III saphenous vein grafts having an average minimal lumen diameter of 2.62 mm, 1.98 mm, and 1.32 mm, respectively (P < .05). Externally stented saphenous vein grafts also showed significant reductions in mean intimal hyperplasia area (22.5%; P < .001) and thickness (23.5%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Two years after coronary artery bypass grafting, external stenting improves Fitzgibbon patency scales of saphenous vein grafts and significantly reduces intimal hyperplasia area and thickness. Whether this will eventually lead to improved long-term patency is still unknown.
OBJECTIVES: Little data exist regarding the potential of external stents to mitigate long-term disease progression in saphenous vein grafts. We investigated the effect of external stents on the progression of saphenous vein graft disease. METHODS: A total of 184 patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting, using an internal thoracic artery graft and at least 2 additional saphenous vein grafts, were enrolled in 14 European centers. One saphenous vein graft was randomized to an external stent, and 1 nonstented saphenous vein graft served as the control. The primary end point was the saphenous vein graft Fitzgibbon patency scale assessed by angiography, and the secondary end point was saphenous vein graft intimal hyperplasia assessed by intravascular ultrasound in a prespecified subgroup at 2 years. RESULTS: Angiography was completed in 128 patients and intravascular ultrasound in the entire prespecified cohort (n = 51) at 2 years. Overall patency rates were similar between stented and nonstented saphenous vein grafts (78.3% vs 82.2%, P = .43). However, the Fitzgibbon patency scale was significantly improved in stented versus nonstented saphenous vein grafts, with Fitzgibbon patency scale I, II, and III rates of 66.7% versus 54.9%, 27.8% versus 34.3%, and 5.5% versus 10.8%, respectively (odds ratio, 2.02; P = .03). Fitzgibbon patency scale was inversely related to saphenous vein graft minimal lumen diameter, with Fitzgibbon patency scale I, II, and III saphenous vein grafts having an average minimal lumen diameter of 2.62 mm, 1.98 mm, and 1.32 mm, respectively (P < .05). Externally stented saphenous vein grafts also showed significant reductions in mean intimal hyperplasia area (22.5%; P < .001) and thickness (23.5%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Two years after coronary artery bypass grafting, external stenting improves Fitzgibbon patency scales of saphenous vein grafts and significantly reduces intimal hyperplasia area and thickness. Whether this will eventually lead to improved long-term patency is still unknown.