Saphenous Vein Graft Interventions

  • Emmanouil S. Brilakis
  • Michael Lee
  • Julinda Mehilli
  • Konstantinos Marmagkiolis
  • Josep Rodes-Cabau
  • Rajesh Sachdeva
  • Anna Kotsia
  • George Christopoulos
  • Bavana V. Rangan
  • Atif Mohammed
  • Subhash Banerjee
Coronary Artery Disease (D Feldman, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Coronary Artery Disease

Opinion statement

Saphenous vein graft (SVG) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) currently accounts for approximately 6 % of all PCIs and is associated with increased risk for distal embolization and subsequent SVG failure compared with native coronary artery PCI. To minimize the risk for distal embolization, embolic protection devices should be used during SVG PCI when technically feasible. To minimize the risk for in-stent restenosis and the need for repeat PCI, drug eluting stents should be utilized in patients without contraindications to long-term antiplatelet therapy. Treating native coronary artery lesions is preferable to SVG PCI when technically feasible.


Percutaneous coronary intervention Saphenous vein grafts Outcomes Drug eluting stent Internal mammary artery 


Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Emmanouil S. Brilakis received research support from the department of Veterans Affairs (PI of the Drug Eluting Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty – DIVA trial and Merit grant – I01-CX000787-01) and from the National Institutes of Health (1R01HL102442-01A1); consulting fees/speaker honoraria from St Jude Medical, Boston Scientific, Asahi, Janssen, Sanofi, and Terumo; research support from Guerbet; spouse is an employee of Medtronic. Dr. Michael Lee received honoraria from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abiomed, and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Julinda Mehilli received lecture fees from Lilly/Daiichi Sankyo, Abbott Vascular, Terumo, The Medicines Company, and Biotronik. Dr. Josep Rodes-Cabau received an unrestricted research grant from Boston Scientific. Dr. Subhash Banerjee received research support from the department of Veterans Affairs (PI of the—Plaque Regression and Progenitor Cell Mobilization with Intensive Lipid Elimination Regimen (PREMIER)) trial. Speaker honoraria from St. Jude Medical, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson, Boehinger, Sanofi, Mdcare Global; research support from Boston Scientific and The Medicines Company. Dr. Konstantinos Marmagkiolis, Dr. Rajesh Sachdeva, Dr. Anna Kotsia, Dr. George Christopoulos, Dr. Bavana V. Rangan, and Dr. Atif Mohammed each declare no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Widimsky P, Straka Z, Stros P, et al. One-year coronary bypass graft patency: a randomized comparison between off-pump and on-pump surgery angiographic results of the PRAGUE-4 trial. Circulation. 2004;110:3418–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander JH, Hafley G, Harrington RA, et al. Efficacy and safety of edifoligide, an E2F transcription factor decoy, for prevention of vein graft failure following coronary artery bypass graft surgery: PREVENT IV: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;294:2446–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morice MC, Feldman TE, Mack MJ, et al. Angiographic outcomes following stenting or coronary artery bypass surgery of the left main coronary artery: fifteen-month outcomes from the synergy between PCI with TAXUS express and cardiac surgery left main angiographic substudy (SYNTAX-LE MANS). EuroIntervention. 2011;7:670–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brilakis ES, Rao SV, Banerjee S, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in native arteries versus bypass grafts in prior coronary artery bypass grafting patients a report from the national cardiovascular data registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:844–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldman S, Zadina K, Moritz T, et al. Long-term patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary artery grafts after coronary artery bypass surgery. Results from a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:2149–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dehmer GJ, Weaver D, Roe MT, et al. A contemporary view of diagnostic cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: a report from the CathPCI Registry of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, 2010 through June 2011. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:2017–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yau TM, Borger MA, Weisel RD, Ivanov J. The changing pattern of reoperative coronary surgery: trends in 1230 consecutive reoperations. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;120:156–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yap CH, Sposato L, Akowuah E, et al. Contemporary results show repeat coronary artery bypass grafting remains a risk factor for operative mortality. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87:1386–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Garcia S, Sandoval Y, Roukoz H, et al. Outcomes after complete versus incomplete revascularization of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of 89,883 patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials and observational studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1421–31.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morrison DA, Sethi G, Sacks J, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus repeat bypass surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia: AWESOME randomized trial and registry experience with post-CABG patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:1951–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:e44–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Varghese I, Samuel J, Banerjee S, Brilakis ES. Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention in native coronary arteries vs bypass grafts in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2009;10:103–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bundhoo SS, Kalla M, Anantharaman R, et al. Outcomes following PCI in patients with previous CABG: a multicenter experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;78:169–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xanthopoulou I, Davlouros P, Tsigkas G, Panagiotou A, Hahalis G, Alexopoulos D. Long-term clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention in grafts vs native vessels in patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting. Can J Cardiol. 2011;27:716–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Michael TT, Karmpaliotis D, Brilakis ES, et al. Impact of prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery on chronic total occlusion revascularisation: insights from a multicentre US registry. Heart. 2013;99:1515–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brilakis ES, Banerjee S, Lombardi WL. Retrograde recanalization of native coronary artery chronic occlusions via acutely occluded vein grafts. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75:109–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hong MK, Mehran R, Dangas G, et al. Creatine kinase-MB enzyme elevation following successful saphenous vein graft intervention is associated with late mortality. Circulation. 1999;100:2400–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.••
    Baim DS, Wahr D, George B, et al. Randomized trial of a distal embolic protection device during percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation. 2002;105:1285–90. First (and only) randomized-controlled trial showing benefit with use of embolic protection devices in SVG lesions.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stone GW, Rogers C, Hermiller J, et al. Randomized comparison of distal protection with a filter-based catheter and a balloon occlusion and aspiration system during percutaneous intervention of diseased saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation. 2003;108:548–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carrozza Jr JP, Mumma M, Breall JA, Fernandez A, Heyman E, Metzger C. Randomized evaluation of the TriActiv balloon-protection flush and extraction system for the treatment of saphenous vein graft disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46:1677–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holmes DR, Coolong A, O’Shaughnessy C, et al. Comparison of the CardioShield filter with the guardwire balloon in the prevention of embolisation during vein graft intervention: results from the CAPTIVE randomised trial. EuroIntervention. 2006;2:161–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mauri L, Cox D, Hermiller J, et al. The PROXIMAL trial: proximal protection during saphenous vein graft intervention using the Proxis Embolic Protection System: a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1442–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kereiakes DJ, Turco MA, Breall J, et al. A novel filter-based distal embolic protection device for percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein graft lesions: results of the AMEthyst randomized controlled trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1:248–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.•
    Abdel-Karim AR, Papayannis AC, Mahmood A, et al. Role of embolic protection devices in ostial saphenous vein graft lesions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80:1120–6. Only study examining use of EPDs in ostial SVG lesions.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ashby DT, Dangas G, Aymong EA, et al. Effect of percutaneous coronary interventions for in-stent restenosis in degenerated saphenous vein grafts without distal embolic protection. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:749–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brilakis ES, Wang TY, Rao SV, et al. Frequency and predictors of drug-eluting stent use in saphenous vein bypass graft percutaneous coronary interventions: a report from the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data CathPCI registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:1068–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Webb LA, Dixon SR, Safian RD, O’Neill WW. Usefulness of embolic protection devices during saphenous vein graft intervention in a nonselected population. J Interv Cardiol. 2005;18:73–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brilakis ES, Held C, Meier B, et al. Effect of ticagrelor on the outcomes of patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery: insights from the platelet inhibition and patient outcomes (PLATO) trial. Am Heart J. 2013;166:474–80.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mahmood A, Khair T, Abdel-Karim AR, et al. Contemporary approaches to saphenous vein graft interventions: a survey of 275 interventional cardiologists. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;79:834–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Badhey N, Lichtenwalter C, de Lemos JA, et al. Contemporary use of embolic protection devices in saphenous vein graft interventions: insights from the stenting of saphenous vein grafts trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76:263–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sdringola S, Assali A, Ghani M, et al. Adenosine use during aortocoronary vein graft interventions reverses but does not prevent the slow-no reflow phenomenon. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000;51:394–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zoghbi GJ, Goyal M, Hage F, et al. Pretreatment with nitroprusside for microcirculatory protection in saphenous vein graft interventions. J Invasive Cardiol. 2009;21:34–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fischell TA, Subraya RG, Ashraf K, Perry B, Haller S. “Pharmacologic” distal protection using prophylactic, intragraft nicardipine to prevent no-reflow and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction during elective saphenous vein graft intervention. J Invasive Cardiol. 2007;19:58–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Michaels AD, Appleby M, Otten MH, et al. Pretreatment with intragraft verapamil prior to percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein graft lesions: results of the randomized, controlled vasodilator prevention on no-reflow (VAPOR) trial. J Invasive Cardiol. 2002;14:299–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hong YJ, Pichard AD, Mintz GS, et al. Outcome of undersized drug-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein graft lesions. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105:179–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Okabe T, Lindsay J, Torguson R, et al. Can direct stenting in selected saphenous vein graft lesions be considered an alternative to percutaneous intervention with a distal protection device? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72:799–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maia F, Costa Jr JR, Abizaid A, et al. Preliminary results of the INSPIRE trial with the novel MGuard stent system containing a protection net to prevent distal embolization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76:86–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Abizaid A, Weiner B, Bailey SR, Londero H. Use of a self-expanding super-elastic all-metal endoprosthesis; to treat degenerated SVG lesions: the SESAME first in man trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76:781–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Savage MP, Douglas Jr JS, 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;337:740–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hanekamp CE, Koolen JJ, Den Heijer P, et al. Randomized study to compare balloon angioplasty and elective stent implantation in venous bypass grafts: the Venestent study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003;60:452–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stankovic G, Colombo A, Presbitero P, et al. Randomized evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent in saphenous vein grafts: the Randomized Evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene COVERed stent in Saphenous vein grafts (RECOVERS) Trial. Circulation. 2003;108:37–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schachinger V, Hamm CW, Munzel T, et al. A randomized trial of polytetrafluoroethylene-membrane-covered stents compared with conventional stents in aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1360–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Turco MA, Buchbinder M, Popma JJ, et al. Pivotal, randomized U.S. study of the Symbiottrade mark covered stent system in patients with saphenous vein graft disease: eight-month angiographic and clinical results from the Symbiot III trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2006;68:379–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stone GW, Goldberg S, O’Shaughnessy C, et al. 5-year follow-up of polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents compared with bare-metal stents in aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts the randomized BARRICADE (barrier approach to restenosis: restrict intima to curtail adverse events) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:300–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vermeersch P, Agostoni P, Verheye S, et al. Randomized double-blind comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent implantation in diseased saphenous vein grafts: six-month angiographic, intravascular ultrasound, and clinical follow-up of the RRISC Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:2423–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.•
    Vermeersch P, Agostoni P, Verheye S, et al. Increased late mortality after sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in diseased saphenous vein grafts: results from the randomized DELAYED RRISC Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:261–7. First trial of DES in SVGs raising concerns for increased mortality with DES during long-term follow-up.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Brilakis ES, Lichtenwalter C, de Lemos JA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a similar bare-metal stent in saphenous vein graft lesions the SOS (Stenting of Saphenous Vein Grafts) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:919–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.•
    Brilakis ES, Lichtenwalter C, Abdel-Karim AR, et al. Continued benefit from paclitaxel-eluting compared with bare-metal stent implantation in saphenous vein graft lesions during long-term follow-up of the SOS (Stenting of Saphenous Vein Grafts) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:176–82. Second trial of DES and the first one to show improved short- and long-term outcomes with DES compared to BMS.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.••
    Mehilli J, Pache J, Abdel-Wahab M, et al. Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft lesions (ISAR-CABG): a randomised controlled superiority trial. Lancet. 2011;378:1071–8. Third and largest clinical trial of DES in SVG showing reduction in the need of target vessel revascularization with DES with no difference in mortality or the incidence of myocardial infarction.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Papayannis AC, Michael TT, Yangirova D, et al. Optical coherence tomography analysis of the stenting of saphenous vein graft (SOS) Xience V Study: use of the everolimus-eluting stent in saphenous vein graft lesions. J Invasive Cardiol. 2012;24:390–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kitabata H, Loh JP, Pendyala LK, et al. Two-year follow-up of outcomes of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation drug-eluting stents for stenosis of saphenous vein grafts used as aortocoronary conduits. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112:61–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Costopoulos C, Latib A, Naganuma T, et al. Comparison of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents in saphenous vein grafts used as aorto-coronary conduits. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112:318–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bangalore S, Kumar S, Fusaro M, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes with drug-eluting and bare-metal coronary stents: a mixed-treatment comparison analysis of 117 762 patient-years of follow-up from randomized trials. Circulation. 2012;125:2873–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    de Waha A, Cassese S, Park DW, et al. Everolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials. Clin Res Cardiol. 2012;101:461–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Palmerini T, Biondi-Zoccai G, Della Riva D, et al. Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012;379:1393–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.•
    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;106:3063–7. Meta-analysis demonstrating lack of benefit with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration in SVG interventions.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Coolong A, Baim DS, Kuntz RE, et al. Saphenous vein graft stenting and major adverse cardiac events: a predictive model derived from a pooled analysis of 3958 patients. Circulation. 2008;117:790–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Brilakis ES, Patel VG, Banerjee S. Medical management after coronary stent implantation: a review. JAMA. 2013;310:189–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sachdeva A, Bavisetty S, Beckham G, et al. Discontinuation of long-term clopidogrel therapy is associated with death and myocardial infarction after saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:2357–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Boatman DM, Saeed B, Varghese I, et al. Prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography have multiple uncontrolled coronary artery disease risk factors and high risk for cardiovascular events. Heart Vessels. 2009;24:241–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.•
    Davlouros P, Damelou A, Karantalis V, et al. Evaluation of culprit saphenous vein graft lesions with optical coherence tomography in patients with acute coronary syndromes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:683–93. First study of optical coherence tomography in SVGs among patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Sachdeva R, Aleti S, Thai H. Radial stent deformation in saphenous vein graft. EuroIntervention. 2012;8:876–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Varghese I, Boatman DM, Peters CT, et al. Impact on contrast, fluoroscopy, and catheter utilization from knowing the coronary artery bypass graft anatomy before diagnostic coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol. 2008;101:1729–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Eisenhauer MD, Malik JA, Coyle LC, Arendt MA. Impact of aorto-coronary graft markers on subsequent graft patency: a retrospective review. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1997;42:259–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.•
    Michael TT, Alomar M, Papayannis A, et al. A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary artery bypass graft angiography and intervention (the RADIAL CABG trial). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:1138–44. First prospective randomized trial of radial vs femoral access for coronary angiography and PCI in patients with prior coronary bypass graft surgery showing high crossover rate and increased use of equipment and radiation in the radial group.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.•
    Farooq V, Mamas MA, Fath-Ordoubadi F, Fraser DG. The use of a guide catheter extension system as an aid during transradial percutaneous coronary intervention of coronary artery bypass grafts. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;78:847–63. The first paper to systematically assess the utility of guide catheter extensions for SVG angiography and PCI.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Bundhoo SS, Earp E, Ivanauskiene T, et al. Saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention via radial artery access: safe and effective with reduced hospital length of stay. Am Heart J. 2012;164:468–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Papayannis AC, Banerjee S, Brilakis ES. Retrograde wiring: a novel technique for identifying the origin of unusual saphenous vein grafts. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2012;13:298–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Abdel-Karim AR, Banerjee S, Brilakis ES. Percutaneous intervention of acutely occluded saphenous vein grafts: contemporary techniques and outcomes. J Invasive Cardiol. 2010;22:253–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Cook J, Uretsky BF, Sachdeva R. Intervention in the occluded vein graft: with high risk can come great reward. Review of techniques with case examples. J Invasive Cardiol. 2012;24:612–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Giugliano GR, Falcone MW, Mego D, et al. A prospective multicenter registry of laser therapy for degenerated saphenous vein graft stenosis: the COronary graft Results following Atherectomy with Laser (CORAL) trial. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2012;13:84–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fiorina C, Meliga E, Chizzola G, et al. Early experience with a new approach for percutaneous intervention of totally occluded saphenous vein graft: is the flow the best thrombolytic? EuroIntervention. 2010;6:461–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Al-Lamee R, Ielasi A, Latib A, et al. Clinical and angiographic outcomes after percutaneous recanalization of chronic total saphenous vein graft occlusion using modern techniques. Am J Cardiol. 2010;106:1721–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Jim MH, Ho HH, Ko RL, et al. Paclitaxel-eluting stents for chronically occluded saphenous vein grafts (EOS) study. J Interv Cardiol. 2010;23:40–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Mhatre A, Uretsky BF, Sachdeva R. Substrate for complications. J Invasive Cardiol. 2012;24:E153–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ellis SG, Brener SJ, DeLuca S, et al. Late myocardial ischemic events after saphenous vein graft intervention–importance of initially “nonsignificant” vein graft lesions. Am J Cardiol. 1997;79:1460–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Abdel-Karim AR, Da Silva M, Lichtenwalter C, et al. Prevalence and outcomes of intermediate saphenous vein graft lesions: findings from the stenting of saphenous vein grafts randomized-controlled trial. Int J Cardiol. 2013.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Rodes-Cabau J, Facta A, Larose E, et al. Predictors of aorto-saphenous vein bypass narrowing late after coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:640–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Aqel R, Zoghbi GJ, Hage F, Dell’Italia L, Iskandrian AE. Hemodynamic evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft lesions using fractional flow reserve. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72:479–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.••
    Rodes-Cabau J, Bertrand OF, Larose E, et al. Comparison of plaque sealing with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus medical therapy for the treatment of moderate nonsignificant saphenous vein graft lesions. The moderate VEin Graft LEsion Stenting With the Taxus Stent and Intravascular Ultrasound (VELETI) pilot trial. Circulation. 2009;120:1978–86. First trial to demonstrate clinical benefit with prophylactic stenting of intermediate SVG lesions with DES.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Marmagkiolis K, Brilakis ES, Hakeem A, Cilingiroglu M, Bilodeau L. Saphenous vein graft perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention: a case series. J Invasive Cardiol. 2013;25:157–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanouil S. Brilakis
    • 1
  • Michael Lee
    • 2
  • Julinda Mehilli
    • 3
  • Konstantinos Marmagkiolis
    • 4
  • Josep Rodes-Cabau
    • 5
  • Rajesh Sachdeva
    • 6
  • Anna Kotsia
    • 1
  • George Christopoulos
    • 1
  • Bavana V. Rangan
    • 1
  • Atif Mohammed
    • 1
  • Subhash Banerjee
    • 1
  1. 1.VA North Texas Healthcare System and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas VA Medical Center (111A)DallasUSA
  2. 2.UCLA Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Munich University Clinic, Campus Grosshadern and InnenstadtLudwig-Maximilian UniversityMunichGermany
  4. 4.Citizens Memorial HospitalHeart and Vascular InstituteBolivarUSA
  5. 5.Quebec Heart and Lung InstituteQuebec CityCanada
  6. 6.Wellstar CardiologyNorth Fulton HospitalRoswellUSA

Personalised recommendations