Outcome of Percoutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Department of Research and Education, Razavi Hospital, Mashhad, IR Iran

Abstract

Background: Advance progression in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) technique, particularly with new advanced drug eluted stents (DES) has made it an effective treatment for many cardiac diseases.

Objectives: Redo coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) has higher risk of mortality rather than first operation. Although the positive impression of percoutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in such symptomatic patents has not proven yet, but different studies have evaluated the outcome of the symptomatic post CABG patients after performing PCI. In this study we aim to find out if PCI could be helpful in such patients.

Patients and Methods: In this study, 111 symptomatic patients with pervious history of single coronary artery bypass graft (without concomitant vale surgery) underwent PCI by a single operator between March 2008 and March 2012. Then, they were followed during the following year after PCI and the incidence of death redo CABG, persistent cardiac symptom and rate of hospitalization were recorded.

Results: The successful rate of PCI in this study was estimated to be 94.5% (104 of 111). In hospital MACE was 9.6% (three deaths and one myocardial infarction). 67% (73) of patients were male and 33% (33) were female. 79.6% (86) of PCI procedures were done on native coronary arteries and 20.4% (22) on SVG grafts. During one year follow up, we had 7 death in patients with PCI on native vessels (group A) and 1 death in the patients whose PCI was performed on SVG grafts (group B), (P ≥ 0.999). In group A, 27.9% (24) patients were remained symptomatic; while in group B, 18.4% (4) patients were still symptomatic (P = 0.353). Hospitalization because of cardiac syndrome was recorded for 10.5% (9) patients in group A and 9.1% (2) patients of group B (P > 0.955). None of the patients of group B went under redo-CABG during the follow up but 2.3% (2) patients of group A did (P > 0.289). No case of stent restenosis or target vessel revascularization was recorded in either group. The overall rate of death was 7.6% (8 0f 104), persistent cardiac symptoms 27% (28 0f 104), hospitalization for cardiac symptoms 10.5% (11 f 14) and redo CABG 2% (2 of 104).

Conclusions: This study shows that PCI in symptomatic post CABG patients follows by high successful and low complication rate and positive impression on their cardiac symptoms and could reduce the need for redo CABG. It seems that there is no difference that PCI is performing on SVG or native vessel, the intervention itself improves the patients’ quality of life.

Keywords

References

  1. 1.Serruys PW, Ong AT, van Herwerden LA, Sousa JE, Jatene A, Bonnier JJ, et al. Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(4):575–81.

    1. Rodriguez AE, Baldi J, Fernandez Pereira C, Navia J, Rodriguez Alemparte M, Delacasa A, et al. Five-year follow-up of the Argentine randomized trial of coronary angioplasty with stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple vessel disease (ERACI II). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;46(4):582–8.
    2. So S. Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the Stent or Surgery trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360(9338):965–70.
    3. Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Walford G, Jones RH, Ryan TJ, Bennett E, et al. Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(21):2174–83.
    4. Babapulle MN, Joseph L, Belisle P, Brophy JM, Eisenberg MJ. A hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. Lancet. 2004;364(9434):583–91.
    5. Hill RA, Dundar Y, Bakhai A, Dickson R, Walley T. Drug-eluting stents: an early systematic review to inform policy. Eur Heart J. 2004;25(11):902–19.
    6. Laird-Meeter K, van Domburg R, van den Brand MJ, Lubsen J, Bos E, Hugenholtz PG. Incidence, risk, and outcome of reintervention after aortocoronary bypass surgery. Br Heart J. 1987;57(5):427–35.
    7. Cameron A, Kemp HJ, Green GE. Reoperation for coronary artery disease. 10 years of clinical follow-up. Circulation. 1988;78(3 Pt 2):I158–62.
    8. Lansky AJ, Dangas G, Mehran R, Desai KJ, Mintz GS, Wu H, et al. Quantitative angiographic methods for appropriate end-point analysis, edge-effect evaluation, and prediction of recurrent restenosis after coronary brachytherapy with gamma irradiation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39(2):274–80.
    9. Stephan WJ, O''''Keefe JH, Jr., Piehler JM, McCallister BD, Dahiya RS, Shimshak TM, et al. Coronary angioplasty versus repeat coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with previous bypass surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;28(5):1140–6.
    10. Bourassa MG, Detre KM, Johnston JM, Vlachos HA, Holubkov R, Investigators of the NDR. Effect of prior revascularization on outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention; NHLBI Dynamic Registry. Eur Heart J. 2002;23(19):1546–55.
    11. Mathew V, Berger PB, Lennon DR, Jr., Gersh BJ, Holmes DJ. Comparison of percutaneous interventions for unstable angina pectoris in patients with and without previous coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86(9):931–7.
    12. Behboudi F, Vakili H, Hashemi SR, Hekmat M, Safi M, Namazi MH. Immediate results and six-month clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with prior coronary artery bypass surgery. J Tehran Heart Cent. 2011;6(1):31–6.
    13. Brilakis ES, Rao SV, Banerjee S, Goldman S, Shunk KA, Holmes DR, Jr., 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(8):844–50.
Razavi International Journal of Medicine
Volume 2, Issue 4
October 2014

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics