Lack of clinical long-term benefit with the use of a drug eluting stent compared to use of a bare metal stent in saphenous vein grafts

• Published in: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2008-07, Vol.72 (1), p.13-20
• Main Authors: Gioia, Giuseppe, Benassi, Alberto, Mohendra, Raghar, Chowdhury, Khaza, Masood, Iqbal, Matthai, William
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary; BMS; DES; Drug-Eluting Stents; Equipment Design; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Graft Occlusion, Vascular - diagnosis; Graft Occlusion, Vascular - etiology; Graft Occlusion, Vascular - therapy; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents - administration & dosage; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Ischemia - etiology; Myocardial Ischemia - mortality; Myocardial Ischemia - therapy; Retrospective Studies; Saphenous Vein - transplantation; SVG; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Tubulin Modulators - administration & dosage
• ISSN: 1522-1946; 1522-726X
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.21599

Background: Small randomized trials have shown short‐term improved outcome with drug‐eluting stents (DES) over bare metal stent (BMS) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions by reducing in‐stent restenosis and target vessel revascularization (TVR). It is not clear, however, if these benefits are maintained long term. The aim of this study is to compare the outcome in a larger cohort of patients undergoing SVG stent implantation with DES or BMS, at 2 years. Methods: From among 250 patients who underwent SVG stenting, 225 patients with available follow‐up were selected from data bases at the three participating institutions. One‐hundred‐six patients had DES (sirolimus, paclitaxel or tacrolimus eluting stent) and 119 patients had any available BMS from April 2002 to December 2006. The primary endpoint was MACE rate, a combination of cardiac death, S‐T elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and target lesion revascularization. Secondary end points were the individual components of the primary endpoint. Follow‐up was obtained by mailed interviews or telephone calls and review of the hospital chart. Results: The DES and BMS groups had similar age (71 ± 8 years vs. 70 ± 7 years, P = 1.0), diabetes (45% vs. 36%, P = 0.3), history of MI (58% vs. 51%, P = 0.6), EF (44% vs. 47%, P = 0.2) and previous PCI (40% vs. 35%, P = 0.4). Reference vessel diameter (3.15 ± 0.5 mm vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 mm. P = 0.001) and stent size (3.3 ± 0.4 mm vs. 3.9 ± 0.5 mm, P = 0.001) were smaller in the DES group; however, the BMS were longer (24 ± 10 mm vs. 21 ± 6 mm, P = 0.05). At one year there was a trend (P = 0.1) for lower MACE rate in the DES group, but at two years there was no difference in MACE free survival between the DES and BMS groups (81 % vs. 82%, P = 0.9). The death rate was similar (6% each) with three patients having STEMI (two in the DES and one in the BMS). TVR was also similar (14% in each group). Conclusion: In patients undergoing treatment of SVG disease with a stent, the marginal benefit of DES seen at 1 year was lost at 2‐year follow‐up. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.