Advertisement

Secondary Percutaneous Revascularization After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

  • Jean Paul Vilchez-Tschischke
  • Hernán David Mejía-Rentería
  • Nieves Gonzalo
  • Philip Francis Dingli
  • Pablo Salinas
  • Javier Escaned
Chapter

Abstract

Better longevity and increasing rates of myocardial revascularization have resulted in higher rates of secondary revascularization procedures. This phenomenon is particularly pertinent to surgically revascularized patients due to the common occurrence of graft failure and progression of native vessel disease. Secondary revascularization procedures have a higher degree of complexity and higher procedural risks due to the presence of diffuse stenosis and chronic total occlusions, as well as the association with many comorbidities, such as diabetes, chronic renal failure, and peripheral arterial disease. In this chapter we will address the decision-making process in repeat revascularization procedures, underlining the importance of the Heart Team; and will describe the particularities and the evidence regarding percutaneous treatment of saphenous vein grafts, arterial grafts, and native arteries in patients with previous revascularization surgery.

Keywords

Arterial grafts Competitive flow Complex percutaneous coronary interventions Coronary artery bypass graft failure Secondary coronary revascularization Embolic protection devices Saphenous vein grafts 

References

  1. 1.
    Sabik JF, Blackstone EH, Gillinov AM, Smedira NG, Lytle BW. Occurrence and risk factors for reintervention after coronary artery bypass grafting. Circulation. 2006;114:I454–60.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brener SJ, et al. Predictors of revascularization method and long-term outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention or repeat coronary bypass surgery in patients with multivessel coronary disease and previous coronary bypass surgery. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:413–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sprecher DL, Pearce GL. How deadly is the ‘deadly quartet’? A post-CABG evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1159–65.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eagle KA, et al. ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft S). Circulation. 2004;110:e340–437.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sergeant P, Blackstone E, Meyns B, Stockman B, Jashari R. First cardiological or cardiosurgical reintervention for ischemic heart disease after primary coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 1998;14:480–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noyez L. The evolution of repeat coronary artery surgery. EuroIntervention. 2009;5(Suppl D):D30–3.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tatoulis J, Buxton BF, Fuller JA. Patencies of 2127 arterial to coronary conduits over 15 years. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:93–101.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Windecker S, et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2541–619.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morís C, Lozano I, Martín M, Rondán J, Avanzas P. Embolic protection devices in saphenous percutaneous intervention. EuroIntervention. 2009;5(Suppl D):D45–50.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tatoulis J. Total arterial coronary revascularization-patient selection, stenoses, conduits, targets. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;2:499–506.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Vries MR, Simons KH, Jukema JW, Braun J, Quax PHA. Vein graft failure: from pathophysiology to clinical outcomes. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016;13:451–70.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lenzen MJ, et al. Management and outcome of patients with established coronary artery disease: the Euro Heart Survey on coronary revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1169–79.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brilakis ES, 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brilakis ES, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in native coronary arteries versus bypass grafts in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery: insights from the veterans affairs clinical assessment, reporting, and tracking program. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:884–93.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iqbal J, et al. Outcomes following primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with previous coronary artery bypass surgery. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e003151.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Smith PK, Spertus JA. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/SCCT 2012 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization focused update: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:857–81.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scarsini R, Zivelonghi C, Pesarini G, Vassanelli C, Ribichini FL. Repeat revascularization: percutaneous coronary intervention after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2016;17:272–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tatoulis J, Buxton BF, Fuller JA, Royse AG. Total arterial coronary revascularization: techniques and results in 3,220 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68:2093–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yap C-H, et al. Contemporary results show repeat coronary artery bypass grafting remains a risk factor for operative mortality. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87:1386–91.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Patel MR, et al. ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 appropriateness criteria for coronary revascularization: a report by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of T. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:530–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:2501–55.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sabik JF, Blackstone EH, Houghtaling PL, Walts PA, Lytle BW. Is reoperation still a risk factor in coronary artery bypass surgery? Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;80:1719–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brener SJ, et al. Propensity analysis of long-term survival after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and high-risk features. Circulation. 2004;109:2290–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kohl LP, et al. Outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with previous coronary bypass surgery. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:981–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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
  26. 26.
    Liu W, et al. Long-term outcome of native artery versus bypass graft intervention in prior coronary artery bypass graft patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Chin Med J (Engl). 2013;126:2281–5.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maroto LC, Silva JA, Rodríguez JE. Assessment of patients with previous CABG. EuroIntervention. 2009;5(Suppl D):D25–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taggart DP, et al. A randomized trial of external stenting for saphenous vein grafts in coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:2039–45.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Meirson T, et al. Flow patterns in externally stented saphenous vein grafts and development of intimal hyperplasia. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150:871–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Subramanian S, et al. Decision-making for patients with patent left internal thoracic artery grafts to left anterior descending. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87:1392–1398; discussion 1400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morrison DA, 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
  32. 32.
    Harskamp RE, et al. Clinical outcome after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in coronary bypass graft failure. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2013;14:438–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sabik JF, Raza S, Blackstone EH, Houghtaling PL, Lytle BW. Value of internal thoracic artery grafting to the left anterior descending coronary artery at coronary reoperation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:302–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zacharias A, et al. Late outcomes after radial artery versus saphenous vein grafting during reoperative coronary artery bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139:1511–1518.e4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Herrera-Nogueira RS, et al. How should I treat a DES restenosis in a graft anastomosis with challenging access and multiple previous coronary interventions? EuroIntervention. 2016;11:1565–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ramcharitar S, van Geuns R-J. Magnetic navigation in patients with coronary artery bypass grafting. EuroIntervention. 2009;5(Suppl D):D58–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Patterson M. 3D reconstruction from contrast coronary angiography in magnetic percutaneous coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76:532–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weisz G, et al. Magnetic positioning system in coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention: a feasibility and safety study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:1084–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sandhu GS, et al. Magnetic navigation facilitates percutaneous coronary intervention for complex lesions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;84:660–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Safian RD. Magnetic navigation: what’s the attraction? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;84:668–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roth C, et al. Comparison of magnetic wire navigation with the conventional wire technique for percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total occlusions: a randomised, controlled study. Heart Vessel. 2015;31:1266.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Escaned J. Secondary revascularization after CABG surgery. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2012;9(9):540.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nguyen-Trong P-KJ, et al. Use of saphenous vein bypass grafts for retrograde recanalization of coronary chronic Total occlusions: insights from a multicenter registry. J Invasive Cardiol. 2016;28:218–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Glineur D, Hanet C. Competitive flow in coronary bypass surgery. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2012;27:620–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lorusso R, et al. Emergency surgery after saphenous vein graft perforation complicated by catheter balloon entrapment and hemorrhagic shock. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;86:1002–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shammas NW, Thondapu VR, Winniford MD, Kalil DA. Perforation of saphenous vein graft during coronary stenting: a case report. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1996;38:274–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lozano I, Rondan J, Avanzas P. Vessel diameter should be taken into account in saphenous stenting. EuroIntervention. 2010;5:991–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lowe R, Hammond C, Perry RA. Prior CABG does not prevent pericardial tamponade following saphenous vein graft perforation associated with angioplasty. Heart. 2005;91:1052.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Brennan JM, et al. Safety and clinical effectiveness of drug-eluting stents for saphenous vein graft intervention in older individuals: results from the medicare-linked National Cardiovascular Data Registry(®) CathPCI registry(®) (2005–2009). Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;87:43.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Abdel-Karim A-RR, 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;168:2468–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yahagi K, et al. Pathophysiology of native coronary, vein graft, and in-stent atherosclerosis. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2015;13:79–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hong MK, 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
  53. 53.
    Baim DS, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stone GW, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Coolong A, et al. Saphenous vein graft stenting and major adverse cardiac events. Circulation. 2008:117, 790–7.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mauri L, 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
  57. 57.
    Levine GN, et al. ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: executive summary. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;79(2012):453–95.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Iqbal MB, et al. Embolic protection device use and its association with procedural safety and long-term outcomes following saphenous vein graft intervention: an analysis from the British Columbia Cardiac registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;88:73–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brennan JM, et al. Three-year outcomes associated with embolic protection in saphenous vein graft intervention: results in 49 325 senior patients in the Medicare-Linked National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e001403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Mehta SK, et al. Utilization of distal embolic protection in saphenous vein graft interventions (an analysis of 19,546 patients in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2007;100:1114–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lim MJ, Young JJ, Senter SR, Klein LW, Interventional Committee for The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Determinants of embolic protection device use: case study in the acceptance of a new medical technology. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2005;65:597–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mauri L, Rogers C, Baim DS. Devices for distal protection during percutaneous coronary revascularization. Circulation. 2006;113:2651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Naidu SS, et al. Contemporary incidence and predictors of major adverse cardiac events after saphenous vein graft intervention with embolic protection (an AMEthyst trial substudy). Am J Cardiol. 2010;105:1060–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Carrozza JP, et al. 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
  65. 65.
    Stankovic G, 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
  66. 66.
    Schächinger V, 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
  67. 67.
    Stone GW, 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
  68. 68.
    Turco MA, 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
  69. 69.
    Bennett J, et al. Long-term follow-up after percutaneous coronary intervention with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered Symbiot stents compared to bare metal stents, with and without FilterWire embolic protection, in diseased saphenous vein grafts. Acta Cardiol. 2013;68:1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Maia F, 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Grube E, Hauptmann KE, Müller R, Uriel N, Kaluski E. Coronary stenting with MGuard: extended follow-up of first human trial. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2011;12:138–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Costa JR, et al. One-year results of the INSPIRE trial with the novel MGuard stent: serial analysis with QCA and IVUS. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;78:1095–100.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Colombo A, Almagor Y, Gaspar J, Vonderwalde C. The pericardium covered stent (PCS). EuroIntervention. 2009;5:394–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Yassin I, Thuesen L. Distal embolization after net protective stent (MGUARD) implantation in a degenerated saphenous vein graft lesion. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;75:639–41.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Latsios G, Tsioufis K, Tousoulis D, Kallikazaros I, Stefanadis C. Perforation of a saphenous vein graft during percutaneous angioplasty: demonstration by means of intravascular ultrasound and consequent treatment with a polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent. Int J Cardiol. 2009;134:e15–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Romaguera R, Gomez-Hospital JA, Cequier A. Novel use of the Mguard mesh-covered stent to treat coronary arterial perforations. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80:75–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Niccoli G, et al. Case-control registry of excimer laser coronary angioplasty versus distal protection devices in patients with acute coronary syndromes due to saphenous vein graft disease. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112:1586–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Nishino M, et al. Indications and outcomes of excimer laser coronary atherectomy: efficacy and safety for thrombotic lesions—the ULTRAMAN registry. J Cardiol. 2016;69:314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2016.05.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Savage MP, 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
  80. 80.
    Wiisanen ME, Abdel-Latif A, Mukherjee D, Ziada KM. Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:1262–73.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Alam M, et al. Clinical outcomes of percutaneous interventions in saphenous vein grafts using drug-eluting stents compared to bare-metal stents: a comprehensive meta-analysisof all randomized clinical trials. Clin Cardiol. 2012;35:291–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Aggarwal V, et al. Safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein bypass graft percutaneous coronary interventions: insights from the Veterans Affairs CART program. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1825–36.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Tolerico PH, et al. In-hospital and 1-year outcomes with drug-eluting versus bare metal stents in saphenous vein graft intervention: a report from the EVENT registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;80:1127–36.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Sanchez-Recalde A, et al. Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein grafts lesions: a meta-analysis. EuroIntervention. 2010;6:149–60.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Brodie BR, et al. Outcomes with drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft intervention results from the STENT (strategic transcatheter evaluation of new therapies) group. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:1105–12.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Fröbert O, Scherstén F, James SK, Carlsson J, Lagerqvist B. Long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting and bare metal stents in saphenous vein grafts. Am Heart J. 2012;164:87–93.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Brilakis ES, 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hakeem A, et al. 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. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;77:343–55.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Mamas MA, et al. A comparison of drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in saphenous vein graft PCI outcomes: a meta-analysis. J Interv Cardiol. 2011;24:172–80.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Mehilli J, et al. Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft lesions (ISAR-CABG): a randomised controlled superiority trial. Lancet (London, England). 2011;378:1071–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Brilakis ES, 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Jeger RV, et al. Drug-eluting stents compared with bare metal stents improve late outcome after saphenous vein graft but not after large native vessel interventions. Cardiology. 2009;112:49–55.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Gao J, Ren M, Liu Y, Gao M, Sun B. Drug-eluting versus bare metal stent in treatment of patients with saphenous vein graft disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol. 2016;222:95–100.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Shi H, et al. Second-generation versus first-generation drug-eluting stents in saphenous vein graftdisease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol. 2016;214:393–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Rodés-Cabau J, et al. Sealing intermediate nonobstructive coronary saphenous vein graft lesions with drug-eluting stents as a new approach to reducing cardiac events. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e004336.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hong YJ, et al. Outcome of undersized drug-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein graft lesions. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105:179–85.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Leborgne L, et al. Effect of direct stenting on clinical outcome in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention on saphenous vein graft. Am Heart J. 2003;146:501–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Roffi M, 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.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Harskamp RE, et al. Procedural and clinical outcomes after use of the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor abciximab for saphenous vein graft interventions. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2015;17:19.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Sketch MH, et al. Angiographic follow-up after internal mammary artery graft angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 1992;70:401–3.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Kereiakes DJ, George B, Stertzer SH, Myler RK. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of left internal mammary artery grafts. Am J Cardiol. 1985;55:1215–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Bell MR, Holmes DR, Vlietstra RE, Bresnahan DR. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of left internal mammary artery grafts: two years’ experience with a femoral approach. Br Heart J. 1989;61:417–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Shimshak TM, et al. Application of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty to the internal mammary artery graft. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;12:1205–14.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Douglas JS. In: Topol E, editor. Textbook of interventional cardiology. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; 2008. p. 443–74.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Buch AN, et al. Comparison of outcomes between bare metal stents and drug-eluting stents for percutaneous revascularization of internal mammary grafts. Am J Cardiol. 2006;98:722–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Zavalloni D, et al. Drug-eluting stents for the percutaneous treatment of the anastomosis of the left internal mammary graft to left anterior descending artery. Coron Artery Dis. 2007;18:495–500.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Lozano I, et al. Immediate and long-term results of drug-eluting stents in mammary artery grafts. Am J Cardiol. 2015;116:1695–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Kulkarni NM, Thomas MR. Severe spasm of a radial artery coronary bypass graft during coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 1999;47:331–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Goube P, et al. Radial artery graft stenosis treated by percutaneous intervention. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg. 2010;37:697–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Thielmann M, et al. Diagnostic discrimination between graft-related and non-graft-related perioperative myocardial infarction with cardiac troponin I after coronary artery bypass surgery. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:2440.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    PREVENT IV Investigators, Alexander JH, et al. Efficacy and safety of edifoligide, an E2F transcription factor decoy, for prevention of vein graft failure following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA. 2005;294:2446.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Balacumaraswami L, et al. Intraoperative imaging techniques to assess coronary artery bypass graft patency. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;83:2251–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Zhao DX, et al. Routine intraoperative completion angiography after coronary artery bypass grafting and 1-stop hybrid revascularization results from a fully integrated hybrid catheterization laboratory/operating room. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:232–41.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Rasmussen C, et al. Significance and management of early graft failure after coronary artery bypass grafting: feasibility and results of acute angiography and re-re-vascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1997;12:847–52.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Babiker A, et al. Rescue percutaneous intervention for acute complications of coronary artery surgery. EuroIntervention. 2009;5(Suppl D):D64–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Davierwala PM, et al. Impact of expeditious management of perioperative myocardial ischemia in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation. 2013;128:S226–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Califf RM, et al. Myonecrosis after revascularization procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;31:241–51.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Hanratty CG, Koyama Y, Ward MR. Angioplasty and stenting of the distal coronary anastomosis for graft failure immediately after coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:1009–11.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Khurana S, O’Neill WW, Sakwa M, Safian RD. Acute occlusion of a left internal mammary artery graft immediately after redo coronary artery bypass surgery: successful rescue PTCA. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1997;41:166–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Dorogy ME, Highfill WT, Davis RC. Use of angioplasty in the management of complicated perioperative infarction following bypass surgery. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1993;29:279–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Piana RN, et al. Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention immediately following coronary artery bypass grafting. Chest. 2001;120:1417–20.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Reifart N, Störger H, Schwarz F, Besser R, Iversen S. [From surgical to interventional standby?]. Z Kardiol. 1998:87(Suppl 3):8–11; discussion 14–5.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Gobel FL, et al. Safety of coronary arteriography in clinically stable patients following coronary bypass surgery. Post CABG Clinical Trial Investigators. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1998;45:376–81.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Adams MR, et al. Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention following coronary artery bypass graft—a descriptive analysis of the changing interface between interventional cardiologist and cardiac surgeon. Clin Cardiol. 2002;25:280–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Abdulmalik A, Arabi A, Alroaini A, Rosman H, Lalonde T. Feasibility of percutaneous coronary interventions in early postcoronary artery bypass graft occlusion or stenosis. J Interv Cardiol. 2007;20:204–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Thielmann M, et al. Emergency re-revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention, reoperation, or conservative treatment in patients with acute perioperative graft failure following coronary artery bypass surgery. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg. 2006;30:117–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Price MJ, Housman L, Teirstein PS. Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention early after coronary artery bypass grafting in the drug-eluting stent era. Am J Cardiol. 2006;97:789–91.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Guney MR, et al. Results of treatment methods in cardiac arrest following coronary artery bypass grafting. J Card Surg. 2009;24:227–33.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Laflamme M, et al. Management of early postoperative coronary artery bypass graft failure. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012;14:452–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Rubino AS, et al. Early intra-aortic balloon pumping following perioperative myocardial injury improves hospital and mid-term prognosis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2009;8:310–5.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean Paul Vilchez-Tschischke
    • 1
  • Hernán David Mejía-Rentería
    • 1
  • Nieves Gonzalo
    • 1
  • Philip Francis Dingli
    • 1
  • Pablo Salinas
    • 1
  • Javier Escaned
    • 1
  1. 1.Interventional Cardiology Unit, Department of CardiologyHospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos IDISSC and Universidad Complutense de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations