This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0003319708317335v1 60/1/60    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Garcia-Tejada, J. Articles by Tascon, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Garcia-Tejada, J. Articles by Tascon, J. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Angioplasty Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Percutaneous Revascularization of Grafts Versus Native Coronary Arteries in Postcoronary Artery Bypass Graft Patients

Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain, juliogtejada{at}yahoo.com

Maite Velazquez, MD

Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain

Felipe Hernandez, MD

Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain

Agustín Albarran, MD

Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain

Sergio Rodriguez, MD

Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain

Ivan Gomez, MD

Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain

Javier Andreu, MD

Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain

Juan Tascon, MD

Servicio de Cardiologia, Hospital Doce de Octubre, Madrid, Spain

In patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery, it is unknown whether better results may be obtained with percutaneous interventions of grafts versus native arteries. The clinical outcomes in 84 patients undergoing percutaneous interventions of either grafts (n = 31) or native arteries (n = 53) were compared. Procedural success rate was 95.3% (96.8% in the graft group vs 94.4% in the native group, P = .3). Mean follow-up was 19 ± 7 months. The incidence of major adverse events was 14.2% (12.9% vs 15.1% in the graft and native groups, respectively; P = .8), mortality rate was 3.5% (6.4% vs 1.8% in the graft and native groups, respectively; P = .3), and target-lesion revascularization was performed in 4.7% (6.4% vs 3.7% in the graft and native groups, respectively, P = .6). In conclusion, both graft or native percutaneous interventions were similar for immediate and midterm clinical outcomes. The relatively low risk need for target-lesion revascularization obtained with both strategies is encouraging.

Key Words: percutaneous revascularization • post-CABG • stent

This version was published on February 1, 2009

Angiology, Vol. 60, No. 1, 60-66 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0003319708317335


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?