Material and Method: All patients undergoing saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent or bare-metal stent alone from January 2013 to December 2017 at our center were assessed retrospectively. Major adverse cardiac events including myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and death were recorded at follow up period.

Results: Ninety two patients included the study. Of these,72 patiens received a drug eluting stent and 20 patients had a bare metal stent. The median follow-up was 29 (range 0-66) months. There were no different outcomes for myocardial infarction, death and target vessel revascularization between drug eluting stent and bare metal stent. The rate of major adverse cardiac event -free survival was %71.3 in the drug eluting stent group and %71.8 in the bare metal stent group (p =0.660).

Conclusion: There was no significant difference in long-term outcomes between drug eluting stent and bare metal stent in saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary interventions in our real world experience. However, more cases and long-term follow-up are warranted.

Baseline clinical characteristics, angiographic charecteristics and PCI data were identified from computer database of our institution. Clinical follow-up data were confirmed by telephone contact. Survival status checked by using National Death Notification System. The events analyzed in this study included death (cardiac and noncardiac), myocardial infarction (MI) (Q wave and non-Q-wave), target vessel revascularization (TVR) (percutaneous). All deaths were considered cardiac unless otherwise documented. MI was defined as elevation of hs troponin upper limit of normal in addition to electrocardiographic changes. TVR was defined as repeat revascularization within the treated vessel. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as cardiac death, MI and TVR.

Statistical analysis: All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS 25 (SPSS INC, Chicago, Illinois, USA). Categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and continuous varibles as mean ± Stan-dard deviation. Kaplan-Meier survival curves used to assess MACE-free survival times and log-rank statistics were used to test survival time differences between groups. A calculated difference of p <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Click Here to Zoom

Table 1: Baseline characteristics of patients according to stent type.

LDL levels were significantly higher in the DES group ( 126.7±45.7 vs. 100.2±29.2, p =0.01). Compared to the BMS group, the DES group had a smaller stent diameter ( 2.8±0.3 mm vs. 3.2±0.7mm, p =0.021) and a longer stent length per lesion ( 21.6±7.3mm vs. 16.9±5.1, p =0.002). The median follow up period was 29 (range 0-66) months. Clinical outcomes during follow up period was showed in table 2.

Click Here to Zoom

Table 2: Clinical outcomes during follow up period.

The MACE rate was %25 in each group (p >0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of MI, TVR and all cause-mortality between two group. The rate of MACE-free survival was 71.3% in the DES group and 71.8% in the BMS group (p =0.660) (Figur 1).

Click Here to Zoom

Figur 1: Kaplan-Meier survival curves for freedom from major adverse cardiac events at follow up.

Randomised controlled trials done to date reported conflicting results (some showed benefit with DES and some showed harm). Brilakis et al. ⁷ examined the risks and benefits of DES versus BMS in a prospective, double blind, randomised trial including 597 patients. They found no significant differences in outcomes between those receiving DES and BMS during 12 months of follow-up. Kheiri et al. ⁸ reported a meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials comparing the outcomes of DES with BMS in SVG percutaneous coronary interventions. They showed the use of DES in SVG lesions was associated with lower short-term MACE, TLR and TVR in comparison with BMS but there were no significant differences with long term follow up. Ha et al. ⁹ reported that DES is associated with a reduction in repeat revascularization compared with BMS and similar MACE rates in their updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. In our study our results are in concordance with most of the literature.

It is known that SVG PCI is associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to native vessel PCI due to pathology of SVG lesions which are characterized by diffusely friable atherosclerotic plaques with thin fibrous caps and high thrombotic burden ¹⁰. This mec-hanism could explain the absence of benefit with DES.

Our study has several limitations. It is a retrospective single-center study with a relatively small sample size. Therefore our results may not reflect entire population. The type of used DES which might affect the clinical outcomes not specified. Also, mostly males were involved in the study. Sex differences are unlikely to affect the clinical outcomes of the study.

1) Goldman S, Zadina K, Moritz Tet 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.

2) Loop FD. A 20-year experience in coronary artery reoperation. Eur Heart J 1989; 10(suppl H): 78-84.

3) Bonaa KH, Mannsverk J, Wiseth R et al. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for coronary artery disease. N Eng J Med 2016; 375: 1242-52.

4) 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 DELA-YED RRISC trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 50: 261-7.

5) 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.

6) 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.

7) Brilakis ES, Edson R, Bhatt DL et al. Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein grafts: a doubleblind, randomised trial. Lancet 2018; 19; 391: 1997-2007.

8) Kheiri B, Osman M, Abdalla A, Ahmed S, Bachuwa G, Hassan M. The short- and long-term out-comes of percutaneous intervention with drug-eluting stent vs bare-metal stent in saphenous vein graft disease: An updated meta-analysis of all randomized clinical trials. Clin Cardiol 2018; 41: 685-92.

9) Ha FJ, Nogic J, Montone RA, Cameron JD, Nerlekar N, Brown AJ. Drug eluting versus bare metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein graft lesions: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2018; 3. doi:

10) 1016/j.carrev.2018.03.025.

10) Yahagi K, Kolodgie FD, Otsuka F et al. Pathophysiology of native coronary vein graft and instent atherosclerosis. Nat Rev Cardiol 2016; 13: 79-98.