Perfusion · 2024
Long-term results of percutaneous coronary intervention in no-touch vein grafts are significantly better than in conventional vein grafts.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ferrari Gabriele, Geijer Håkan, Cao Yang, Graf Ulf, Bojö Leif, Carlsson Roland, Souza Domingos, Samano Ninos
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Conventional vein grafts have a high risk of thrombosis and early atherosclerosis. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in conventional vein grafts is associated with a higher incidence of late adverse cardiac events. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term results after PCI in saphenous vein grafts (SVG) harvested with the no-touch technique compared to the conventional technique.
METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study, based on data from the Swedeheart register. The inclusion criterion was individuals who underwent CABG using different vein graft techniques between January 1992 and July 2020, and who required a PCI in SVGs between January 2006 and July 2020. The primary end point was long-term in-stent restenosis. The secondary endpoints were long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and 1-year re-hospitalization rates. The associations between the graft types and the endpoints were evaluated using the Fine and Gray competing-risk regression analysis.
RESULTS: The study included 346 individuals (67 no-touch, 279 conventional). The mean clinical follow-up time was 6.4 years with a standard deviation of 3.7 years. The long-term in-stent restenosis rate for the no-touch grafts was 3.2% compared to 18.7% for the conventional grafts (p < .01), with a subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) of 0.16 (p = .010). The long-term MACE rate was 27.0% in the no-touch group and 48.3% in the conventional group (p < .01) with a SHR of 0.53 (p = .017). The short-term results were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous coronary intervention in a no-touch vein graft was associated with statistically significantly fewer in-stent restenoses and MACE at long-term follow-up compared to a conventional SVG.
METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study, based on data from the Swedeheart register. The inclusion criterion was individuals who underwent CABG using different vein graft techniques between January 1992 and July 2020, and who required a PCI in SVGs between January 2006 and July 2020. The primary end point was long-term in-stent restenosis. The secondary endpoints were long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and 1-year re-hospitalization rates. The associations between the graft types and the endpoints were evaluated using the Fine and Gray competing-risk regression analysis.
RESULTS: The study included 346 individuals (67 no-touch, 279 conventional). The mean clinical follow-up time was 6.4 years with a standard deviation of 3.7 years. The long-term in-stent restenosis rate for the no-touch grafts was 3.2% compared to 18.7% for the conventional grafts (p < .01), with a subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR) of 0.16 (p = .010). The long-term MACE rate was 27.0% in the no-touch group and 48.3% in the conventional group (p < .01) with a SHR of 0.53 (p = .017). The short-term results were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous coronary intervention in a no-touch vein graft was associated with statistically significantly fewer in-stent restenoses and MACE at long-term follow-up compared to a conventional SVG.