ENDOVASCULAR INTERVENTION OF CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

In the first year occlusion occurs 10-15% of coronary artery bypass graft in 10 years - 50%, which causes the resumption of anginal patients after CABG. One of the most effective and safe methods of treatment of these patients is recognized endovascular intervention artery bypass graft failure or inter-vention of native coronary artery. In contrast classical percutaneous coronary reconstructions, for which there exist algorithms endovascular treatment for minimizing intraoperative risk and achieving the best long term results, treatment of saphenous vein grafts (SVG) still remains a challenging clinical problem. This article is a summary review of the literature dedicated to endovascular interventions for myocardial revascularization on the coronary artery bypass graft in patient after CABG. Analysis of the research allowed us to draw conclusions about the tactics of endovascular treatment of patients with return of angina after CABG, as well as about the defeat of the saphenous vein grafts lesions for endovascular interventions, and to identify the technical features of the SVG stenting.

About the authors

I S Bazanov

3rd Central military clinical hospital N.A. Vishnevsky, Krasnogorsk, Russia

Author for correspondence.
Email: ba333333a@gmail.com

к.м.н., ФГБУ «3 ЦВКГ им. А.А. Вишневского» МО РФ

V A Ivanov

3rd Central military clinical hospital N.A. Vishnevsky, Krasnogorsk, Russia; RUDN University, Moscow, Russia

Email: konovalov_oe@rudn.university

S B Zharikov

3rd Central military clinical hospital N.A. Vishnevsky, Krasnogorsk, Russia; RUDN University, Moscow, Russia

Email: konovalov_oe@rudn.university

I I Polyakov

3rd Central military clinical hospital N.A. Vishnevsky, Krasnogorsk, Russia

Email: konovalov_oe@rudn.university

E V Tsymbal

3rd Central military clinical hospital N.A. Vishnevsky, Krasnogorsk, Russia

Email: konovalov_oe@rudn.university

T Ya Musoev

RUDN University, Moscow, Russia

Email: konovalov_oe@rudn.university

I G Sitko

GKB M. P. Konchalovsky, Moscow, Russia

Email: konovalov_oe@rudn.university

M V Lokshina

3rd Central military clinical hospital N.A. Vishnevsky, Krasnogorsk, Russia

Email: konovalov_oe@rudn.university

References

  1. Abdel-Karim A. R., Da Silva M., Lichtenwalter C., 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(3):2468—2473. Epub 2013 Apr 3. 19.
  2. Abdel-Karim A. R., Da Silva M. & Lichtenwalter C. 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(3):2468—2473. Epub 2013 Apr 3. 6.
  3. Ahmed J. M., Dangas G., Lansky A. J. Influence of gender on early and one-year clinical out-comes after saphenous vein graft stenting. Am J Cardiol. 2001;87(4):401—405. 11.
  4. Aqel R., Zoghbi G. J., Hage F., Dell’Italia L. & Iskandrian A. E. Hemodynamic evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft lesions using fractional flow reserve. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72(4):479—485. 16.
  5. De Bruyne B., Pijls N. H., Kalesan B., et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(11):991—1001. 17.
  6. Desai N. D., Cohen E. A., Naylor C. D. & Fremes S. E. A randomized comparison of radial-ar¬tery and saphenous-vein coronary bypass grafts. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(22):2302—2309. 2.
  7. Dixon S. Saphenous vein graft protection in a distal embolic protection randomized trial. Pre-sented at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics, Oct 2005: Washington DC. 60.
  8. Fischell T. A., Carter A.J., Foster M.T., et al. Reversal of “no reflow” during vein graft stenting using high velocity boluses of intracoronary adenosine. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1998;45(4): 360—365. 72.
  9. Harskamp R. E., Beijk M. A., Damman P., Tijssen J. G., Lopes R. D. & de Winter R. J. Pre¬hospitalization antiplatelet therapy and outcomes after saphenous vein graft intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(2):153—158. Epub 2012 Oct 24. 69.
  10. Harskamp R. E., Lopes R. D., Baisden C. E., de Winter R. J. & Alexander J. H. Saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass surgery: pathophysiology, management, and future direc-tions. Ann Surg. 2013;257(5):824—833. 1.
  11. Hillegass W. B., Dean N. A., Lial L., Rhinehart R. G. & Myers P. R. Treatment of no-reflow and impaired flow with the nitric oxide donor nitroprusside following percutaneous coronary interven-tions: initial human clinical experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37(5):1335—1343. 75.
  12. Hong M. K., Mehran R., Dangas G., et al. Creatine kinase-MB enzyme elevation following suc-cessful saphenous vein graft intervention is associated with late mortality. Circulation. 1999;100(24):2400—2405. 9.
  13. Hong Y. J., Jeong M. H., Ahn Y., et al. Intravascular ultrasound analysis of plaque characteristics and postpercutaneous coronary intervention catheterization outcomes according to the remodeling pattern in narrowed saphenous vein grafts. Am J Cardiol. 2012;110(9):1290—1295. Epub 2012 Jul 25. 14.
  14. Hong Y. J., Pichard A. D., Mintz G. S., et al. Outcome of undersized drug-eluting stents for percu-taneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein graft lesions. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105(2):179—185. Epub 2009 Nov 14. 51.
  15. Iakovou I., Dangas G., Mintz G. S., et al. Relation of final lumen dimensions in saphenous vein grafts after stent implantation to outcome. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93(8):963—968. 50.
  16. Kaplan B. M., Benzuly K. H., Kinn J. W., et al. Treatment of no-reflow in degenerated saphenous vein graft interventions: comparison of intracoronary verapamil and nitroglycerin. Cathet Cardio-vasc Diagn. 1996;39(2):113—118. 78.
  17. Kapoor N., Yalamanchili V., Siddiqui T., Raza S., Leesar M. A. Cardioprotective effect of high-dose intragraft adenosine infusion on microvascular function and prevention of no-reflow during saphenous vein grafts intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;83(7):1045—1054. Epub 2014 Jan 31. 73.
  18. Keeley E. C., Velez C. A. & O’Neill W. W. Long-term clinical outcome and predictors of major adverse cardiac events after percutaneous interventions on saphenous vein grafts. J Am Coll Car-diol. 2001;38(3):659—665. 7.
  19. Kern M. J. Is the coronary physiology of bypass grafts different from that of the native coronary artery? Comment on the “hemodynamic evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft lesions using fractional flow reserve”. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72(4):486—487. 18.
  20. Kirtane A. J., Heyman E. R. & Metzger C. Correlates of adverse events during saphenous vein graft intervention with distal embolic protection: a PRIDE substudy. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1(2):186—191. 8.
  21. Kitabata H., Loh J. P., Pendyala L. K., et al. Two-year follow-up of outcomes of second-generation everolimus-eluting stents versus first-generation drug-eluting stents for stenosis of saphenous vein grafts used as aortocoronary conduits. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112(1):61—67. 35.
  22. Kumar D., Dangas G., Mehran R., et al. Comparison of bivalirudin versus bivalirudin plus glyco-protein IIb/IIIa inhibitor versus heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in patients with acute coronary syndromes having percutaneous intervention for narrowed saphenous vein aorto-coronary grafts (the ACUITY trial investigators). Am J Cardiol. 2010;106(7):941—945. 67.
  23. Leborgne L., Cheneau E., Pichard A., 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(3):501—506. 48.
  24. Levine G. N., Bates E. R., Blankenship J. C., et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for per¬cutaneous coronary intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Car¬diovascular Angiography and Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(24):e44—e122. Epub 2011 Nov 7. 68.
  25. Maluenda G., Alfonso F. & Pichard A. D. Percutaneous intervention of a thrombotic-occluded saphenous vein graft successfully treated using the undersized stent approach to prevent distal em-bolization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;78(1):65—69. Epub 2011 Feb 16. 52.
  26. Mehilli J., Pache J., Abdel-Wahab M., et al. Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft lesions (ISAR-CABG): a randomized controlled superiority trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9796):1071—1078. 30.
  27. Mehta S. K., Frutkin A. D., Milford-Beland S., et al. Utilization of distal embolic protection in saphenous vein graft interventions (an analysis of 19,546 patients in the American College of Car-diology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2007;100(7):1114—1118. Epub 2007 Jul 18. 53.
  28. Michaels A. D., Appleby M., Otten M. H., et al. Pretreatment with intragraft verapamil prior to percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein graft lesions: results of the randomized, controlled vasodilator prevention on no-reflow (VAPOR) trial. J Invasive Cardiol. 2002;14(6): 299—302. 76.
  29. Murphy G. J. & Angelini G. D. Insights into the pathogenesis of vein graft disease: lessons from intravascular ultrasound. Cardiovasc Ultrasound. 2004;2:8. 15.
  30. Naidu S. S., Turco M. A. & Mauri L. 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(8):1060—1064. Epub 2010 Feb 20. 10.
  31. Okabe T., Lindsay J., Torguson R., et al. Can direct stenting in selected saphenous vein graft le-sions be considered an alternative to percutaneous intervention with a distal protection device? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;72(6):799—803. 49.
  32. Roffi M., Mukherjee D., Chew D. P., et al. Lack of benefit from intravenous platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibition as adjunctive treatment for percutaneous interventions of aorto¬coronary bypass grafts: a pooled analysis of five randomized clinical trials. Circulation. 2002; 106(24):3063—3067. 66.
  33. Sdringola S., Assali A., Ghani M., et al. Adenosine use during aortocoronary vein graft interven-tions reverses but does not prevent the slow-no reflow phenomenon. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2000;51(4):394—399. 71.
  34. Sdringola S., Assali A. R., Ghani M., et al. Risk assessment of slow or no-reflow phenomenon in aortocoronary vein graft percutaneous intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2001;54(3): 318—324. 70.
  35. Sharma S. Intra-graft abciximab and verapamil combined with direct stenting is a safe and effec-tive strategy to prevent slow-flow and no-reflow phenomenon in saphenous vein graft lesions not associated with thrombus. Recent Pat Cardiovasc Drug Discov. 2012;7(2):152—159. 77.
  36. Stone G. W., Rogers C., Hermiller J., et al. Randomized comparison of distal protection with a fil-ter-based catheter and a balloon occlusion and aspiration system during percutaneous intervention of diseased saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation. 2003;108(5): 548—553. 58.
  37. Sturm E., Goldberg D. & Goldberg S. Stenting in saphenous vein grafts with distal protection us-ing a second generation filter-based catheter: the combined BLAZE I and II registries. Presented at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics, Oct 2005: Washington DC. 59.
  38. Zoghbi G. J., Goyal M., Hage F., et al. Pretreatment with nitroprusside for microcirculatory pro-tection in saphenous vein graft interventions. J Invasive Cardiol. 2009;21(2):34—39. 74.

Copyright (c) 2017 Bazanov I.S., Ivanov V.A., Zharikov S.B., Polyakov I.I., Tsymbal E.V., Musoev T.Y., Sitko I.G., Lokshina M.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies