Safety and Efficacy of Embolic Protection Devices in Saphenous Vein Graft Interventions: A Propensity Score Analysis—Multicenter SVG PCI PROTECTA Study
Wojciech Wańha,Maksymilian Mielczarek,Natasza Gilis-Malinowska,Tomasz Roleder,Marek Milewski,Szymon Ładziński,Dariusz Ciećwierz,Paweł Gąsior,Tomasz Pawłowski,Rafał Januszek,Adam Kowalówka,Michalina Kolodziejczak,Stanisław Bartuś,Marcin Gruchała,Grzegorz Smolka,Eliano Pio Navarese,Dariusz Dudek,Andrzej Ochała,Elvin Kedhi,Miłosz Jaguszewski,Wojciech Wojakowski
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9041198
IF: 3.9
2020-04-22
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Abstract:Background: Evidence concerning the efficacy of the embolic protection devices (EPDs) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is sparse. The study was designed to compare major cardiovascular events of all-comer population of SVG PCI with and without EPDs at one year of follow-up. Methods and results: A multi-center registry comparing PCI with and without EPDs in consecutive patients undergoing PCI of SVG. The group comprised 792 patients, among which 266 (33.6%) had myocardial infarction (MI). The primary composite endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) defined as death, MI, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stroke assessed at one year. After propensity score analysis, there were no differences in MACCE (21.9% vs. 23.9%; HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.57–1.45, p = 0.681, respectively) nor in secondary endpoints of death, MI, TVR, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and stroke at one year in EPDs PCI group vs. no-EPDs PCI group. Similarly, there were no differences between groups in the study endpoints at 30 days follow-up. Conclusions: There were no clinical benefit for routine use of EPDs during SVG PCI in short and long-term follow-up. Further studies are warranted to explore the effect of individual types of EPDs on clinical outcomes.
medicine, general & internal