Outcomes of Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention with and Without Embolic Protection Device: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis

Timir K. Paul, Samit Bhatheja, Hemang B. Panchal, Shimin Zheng, Subhash Banerjee, Sunil V. Rao, Luis Guzman, Nirat Beohar, David Zhao, Roxana Mehran, Debabrata Mukherjee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background-Current guidelines give a class I recommendation to use of embolic protection devices (EPD) for saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention; however, studies have shown conflicting results. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization in SVG intervention with and without EPD. Methods and Results-Literature was searched through October 2016. Eight studies (n=52 893) comparing SVG intervention performed with EPD (n=11 506) and without EPD (n=41 387) were included. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.12; P=0.19), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 0.73, CI, 0.51-1.05; P=0.09), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.0; CI, 0.95-1.05; P=0.94), periprocedural MI (OR, 1.12; CI, 0.65-1.90, P=0.69), and late MI (OR, 0.80; CI, 0.52-1.23; P=0.30) between the 2 groups. Sensitivity analysis excluding CathPCI Registry study showed no difference in periprocedural MI, late MI, and target vessel revascularization; however, it favored EPD use in all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. Further sensitivity analysis including only observational studies revealed no difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, and late MI. Additional analysis after excluding CathPCI Registry study revealed no difference in outcomes. Conclusions-This study including 52 893 patients suggests no apparent benefit in routine use of EPD during SVG intervention in the contemporary real-world practice. Further randomized clinical trials are needed in current era to evaluate long-term outcomes in routine use of EPD, and meanwhile, current guideline recommendations on EPD use should be revisited.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere005538
JournalCirculation: Cardiovascular Interventions
Volume10
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2017

Fingerprint

Embolic Protection Devices
Saphenous Vein
Meta-Analysis
Transplants
Myocardial Infarction
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Mortality
Registries
Guidelines
Observational Studies
Randomized Controlled Trials

Keywords

  • embolic protection device
  • meta-analysis
  • mortality
  • myocardial infarction
  • percutaneous coronary intervention

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Outcomes of Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention with and Without Embolic Protection Device : A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis. / Paul, Timir K.; Bhatheja, Samit; Panchal, Hemang B.; Zheng, Shimin; Banerjee, Subhash; Rao, Sunil V.; Guzman, Luis; Beohar, Nirat; Zhao, David; Mehran, Roxana; Mukherjee, Debabrata.

In: Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, Vol. 10, No. 12, e005538, 01.12.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Paul, Timir K. ; Bhatheja, Samit ; Panchal, Hemang B. ; Zheng, Shimin ; Banerjee, Subhash ; Rao, Sunil V. ; Guzman, Luis ; Beohar, Nirat ; Zhao, David ; Mehran, Roxana ; Mukherjee, Debabrata. / Outcomes of Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention with and Without Embolic Protection Device : A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis. In: Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017 ; Vol. 10, No. 12.
@article{ed73d45fc57840e4834a2b4aba2fe80a,
title = "Outcomes of Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention with and Without Embolic Protection Device: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis",
abstract = "Background-Current guidelines give a class I recommendation to use of embolic protection devices (EPD) for saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention; however, studies have shown conflicting results. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization in SVG intervention with and without EPD. Methods and Results-Literature was searched through October 2016. Eight studies (n=52 893) comparing SVG intervention performed with EPD (n=11 506) and without EPD (n=41 387) were included. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.12; P=0.19), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 0.73, CI, 0.51-1.05; P=0.09), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.0; CI, 0.95-1.05; P=0.94), periprocedural MI (OR, 1.12; CI, 0.65-1.90, P=0.69), and late MI (OR, 0.80; CI, 0.52-1.23; P=0.30) between the 2 groups. Sensitivity analysis excluding CathPCI Registry study showed no difference in periprocedural MI, late MI, and target vessel revascularization; however, it favored EPD use in all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. Further sensitivity analysis including only observational studies revealed no difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, and late MI. Additional analysis after excluding CathPCI Registry study revealed no difference in outcomes. Conclusions-This study including 52 893 patients suggests no apparent benefit in routine use of EPD during SVG intervention in the contemporary real-world practice. Further randomized clinical trials are needed in current era to evaluate long-term outcomes in routine use of EPD, and meanwhile, current guideline recommendations on EPD use should be revisited.",
keywords = "embolic protection device, meta-analysis, mortality, myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention",
author = "Paul, {Timir K.} and Samit Bhatheja and Panchal, {Hemang B.} and Shimin Zheng and Subhash Banerjee and Rao, {Sunil V.} and Luis Guzman and Nirat Beohar and David Zhao and Roxana Mehran and Debabrata Mukherjee",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005538",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
journal = "Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions",
issn = "1941-7640",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcomes of Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention with and Without Embolic Protection Device

T2 - A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis

AU - Paul, Timir K.

AU - Bhatheja, Samit

AU - Panchal, Hemang B.

AU - Zheng, Shimin

AU - Banerjee, Subhash

AU - Rao, Sunil V.

AU - Guzman, Luis

AU - Beohar, Nirat

AU - Zhao, David

AU - Mehran, Roxana

AU - Mukherjee, Debabrata

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - Background-Current guidelines give a class I recommendation to use of embolic protection devices (EPD) for saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention; however, studies have shown conflicting results. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization in SVG intervention with and without EPD. Methods and Results-Literature was searched through October 2016. Eight studies (n=52 893) comparing SVG intervention performed with EPD (n=11 506) and without EPD (n=41 387) were included. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.12; P=0.19), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 0.73, CI, 0.51-1.05; P=0.09), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.0; CI, 0.95-1.05; P=0.94), periprocedural MI (OR, 1.12; CI, 0.65-1.90, P=0.69), and late MI (OR, 0.80; CI, 0.52-1.23; P=0.30) between the 2 groups. Sensitivity analysis excluding CathPCI Registry study showed no difference in periprocedural MI, late MI, and target vessel revascularization; however, it favored EPD use in all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. Further sensitivity analysis including only observational studies revealed no difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, and late MI. Additional analysis after excluding CathPCI Registry study revealed no difference in outcomes. Conclusions-This study including 52 893 patients suggests no apparent benefit in routine use of EPD during SVG intervention in the contemporary real-world practice. Further randomized clinical trials are needed in current era to evaluate long-term outcomes in routine use of EPD, and meanwhile, current guideline recommendations on EPD use should be revisited.

AB - Background-Current guidelines give a class I recommendation to use of embolic protection devices (EPD) for saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention; however, studies have shown conflicting results. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization in SVG intervention with and without EPD. Methods and Results-Literature was searched through October 2016. Eight studies (n=52 893) comparing SVG intervention performed with EPD (n=11 506) and without EPD (n=41 387) were included. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.12; P=0.19), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 0.73, CI, 0.51-1.05; P=0.09), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.0; CI, 0.95-1.05; P=0.94), periprocedural MI (OR, 1.12; CI, 0.65-1.90, P=0.69), and late MI (OR, 0.80; CI, 0.52-1.23; P=0.30) between the 2 groups. Sensitivity analysis excluding CathPCI Registry study showed no difference in periprocedural MI, late MI, and target vessel revascularization; however, it favored EPD use in all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. Further sensitivity analysis including only observational studies revealed no difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, and late MI. Additional analysis after excluding CathPCI Registry study revealed no difference in outcomes. Conclusions-This study including 52 893 patients suggests no apparent benefit in routine use of EPD during SVG intervention in the contemporary real-world practice. Further randomized clinical trials are needed in current era to evaluate long-term outcomes in routine use of EPD, and meanwhile, current guideline recommendations on EPD use should be revisited.

KW - embolic protection device

KW - meta-analysis

KW - mortality

KW - myocardial infarction

KW - percutaneous coronary intervention

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85038927588&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85038927588&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005538

DO - 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.117.005538

M3 - Article

C2 - 29246912

AN - SCOPUS:85038927588

VL - 10

JO - Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions

JF - Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions

SN - 1941-7640

IS - 12

M1 - e005538

ER -