Next Article in Journal
Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Tinnitus Outcome Measurement Instruments—A Scoping Review
Previous Article in Journal
The Utility and Appropriateness of Single-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-Arm-Based Navigation in the Novel Oblique Position
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 22
10.3390/jcm12227118
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Saphenous Vein Graft Failure: Current Challenges and a Review of the Contemporary Percutaneous Options for Management

by
Liam Back
* and
Andrew Ladwiniec
Glenfield Hospital, Leicester LE39QP, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(22), 7118; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227118
Submission received: 26 September 2023 / Revised: 21 October 2023 / Accepted: 9 November 2023 / Published: 15 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Cardiology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The use of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) in the surgical management of obstructive coronary artery disease remains high despite a growing understanding of their limitations in longevity. In contemporary practice, approximately 95% of patients receive one SVG in addition to a left internal mammary artery (LIMA) graft. The precise patency rates for SVGs vary widely in the literature, with estimates of up to 61% failure rate at greater than 10 years of follow-up. SVGs are known to progressively degenerate over time and, even if they remain patent, demonstrate marked accelerated atherosclerosis. Multiple studies have demonstrated a marked acceleration of atherosclerosis in bypassed native coronary arteries compared to non-bypassed arteries, which predisposes to a high number of native chronic total occlusions (CTOs) and subsequent procedural challenges when managing graft failure. Patients with failing SVGs frequently require revascularisation to previously grafted territories, with estimates of 13% of CABG patients requiring an additional revascularisation procedure within 10 years. Redo CABG confers a significantly higher risk of in-hospital mortality and, as such, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has become the favoured strategy for revascularisation in SVG failure. Percutaneous treatment of a degenerative SVG provides unique challenges secondary to a tendency for frequent superimposed thrombi on critical graft stenoses, friable lesions with marked potential for distal embolization and subsequent no-reflow phenomena, and high rates of peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI). Furthermore, the rates of restenosis within SVG stents are disproportionately higher than native vessel PCI despite the advances in drug-eluting stent (DES) technology. The alternative to SVG PCI in failed grafts is PCI to the native vessel, ‘replacing’ the grafts and restoring patency within the previously grafted coronary artery, with or without occluding the donor graft. This strategy has additional challenges to de novo coronary artery PCI, however, due to the high burden of complex atherosclerotic lesion morphology, extensive coronary calcification, and the high incidence of CTO. Large patient cohort studies have reported worse short- and long-term outcomes with SVG PCI compared to native vessel PCI. The PROCTOR trial is a large and randomised control trial aimed at assessing the superiority of native vessel PCI versus vein graft PCI in patients with prior CABG awaiting results. This review article will explore the complexities of SVG failure and assess the contemporary evidence in guiding optimum percutaneous interventional strategy.

1. Introduction

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains an important and highly prevalent management option in the contemporary treatment of obstructive coronary artery disease. Despite a noted decline in CABG frequency in the UK since 2014 [1], current European guidelines advocate CABG in preference to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in multiple coronary syndromes including left main disease (Level 1, Class A) and three vessel coronary disease with an intermediate to high SYNTAX score, regardless of the presence of diabetes mellitus (Level 1, Class A) [2]. Arterial conduits in contrast to venous have long been demonstrated to provide a superior and durable graft result with a left internal mammary artery graft (LIMA) maintaining a patency rate of 88–100% at 15 years [3,4,5,6] and meta-analyses demonstrating a significantly higher saphenous venous graft (SVG) failure rate when compared to radial arterial grafts [7]. Despite this growing understanding of their limitations in longevity, the use of SVGs as a surgical conduit in CABG remains high [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. As SVGs do not mirror the natural history of arterial grafts, with an observed accelerated rate of atherosclerosis in both the conduit and the native vessel, they present unique challenges with regards to the management of graft failure in a population with a substantial lifespan after their initial revascularisation. This review article will explore the contemporary challenges of SVG failure and discuss the percutaneous options for management in this patient cohort.

2. Choice of Surgical Conduit

Arterial versus Venous Conduit in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

The use of a LIMA graft to the left anterior descending artery (LAD) was established in 1986 following a landmark study demonstrating improved mortality in coronary revascularisation and remains the cornerstone of surgical coronary artery disease management worldwide [18]. Which additional conduit is the optimum vessel for surgical management has been an important consideration for cardiac surgeons, with both arterial and venous conduits having been studied extensively. Several trials have demonstrated higher rates of angiographic patency in radial artery (RA) grafts versus SVG; however, these trials were underpowered to detect differences in the frequency of clinical events [19]. While the superiority of RA over SVG has been supported in a recent meta-analysis [20], with lower rates of adverse cardiac events and occlusion at five years, there remains a reluctance in the wider surgical community to adopt the practice of multiple arterial grafts. As such, due to its accessibility and length, the greater saphenous vein remains the most widely utilised conduit and the consequence of its limited longevity remains an important clinical consideration.

3. Saphenous Vein Graft Failure

3.1. The Natural History of Saphenous Venous Grafts Following Anastomosis

In contemporary CABG, up to 95% of patients worldwide receive at least one SVG in addition to the use of a LIMA [12,21]. The precise patency rates for SVG vary widely in the literature, with estimates of 11–41% failure rate at less than 3 years [8,9,13,14], 19–33% failure rate at 5 to 10 years [10,15,16,17], and 39–61% at greater than 10-year follow-up [10,11,22,23,24] (Table 1). SVGs are known to progressively degenerate over time and, even if they remain patent, demonstrate marked accelerated atherosclerosis. As early as the first year following anastomosis to the arterial system, neointimal hyperplasia and foamy macrophages are observed in SVGs, progressing to stenotic lesions through the expansion of necrotic cores [25]. Within 5 to 10 years, these neoatherosclerotic plaques are well established and often associated with friability, erosive features, and luminal thrombus [25,26]. This leads to the high occurrence of ischaemia-driven events, distal embolisation, and occlusive pathology.

3.2. The Natural History of Native Artery Coronary Atherosclerosis Following Grafting

Before considering the options available for the management of SVG failure, it is important to consider the natural history of the native coronaries following graft implantation. Although the majority of evidence investigating this issue preceded the widespread use of internal mammary grafts and statins, multiple studies have demonstrated a marked acceleration of atherosclerosis in bypassed arteries compared to non-bypassed arteries [27,28,29,30]; this phenomenon is frequently encountered in clinical practice (Figure 1). In one study, the progression of atherosclerosis, defined as at least a further 25% lumen loss during a mean follow-up period of 37 months, was more than 10 times as frequent in bypassed arteries with minimal atherosclerosis as compared to non-bypasses arteries [28]. The status of the bypassed native coronary artery, particularly progression to a chronic total occlusion (CTO), is clinically important when considering graft failure as multicentre registry data demonstrate a lower technical rate of success in revascularisation of CTO patients with prior CABG compared to those without [31,32,33].

4. Diagnosis of Graft Failure

As the expected prognosis of patients post-CABG has improved significantly over the past three decades [34,35], the diagnosis and management of SVG failure will become an increasingly important issue in cardiac surgical and cardiology practice. The need for repeat revascularisation procedures following CABG is known to increase cumulatively over time, with registry data suggesting a revascularisation rate of 2% in the first year following primary CABG, 7% at 5 years, 13% at 10 years, and 16% at 18 years [36] (Table 2). While the investigation of graft failure remains similar to the investigation of de novo ischaemic heart disease syndromes, with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) serving as the definitive investigation, graft evaluation on these patients confers additional challenges. These challenges can include a higher degree of calcification, higher number of vessels to engage, variability in the ostia positioning of grafts, and uncertain or incomplete operative information prior to the procedure. For these reasons, invasive coronary angiography in patients with previous CABG is known to lead to longer procedure times, higher total contrast dose and radiation exposure, and increased risk of major complications including stroke and contrast-induced nephropathies when compared to patients without prior CABG [37,38,39,40].
Research into alternative investigative strategies for saphenous vein graft failure, particularly CT coronary angiography (CTCA), has been promising in minimising these additional risks. CTCA has been demonstrated to be highly effective in detecting graft stenoses, with observational data estimating both sensitivity and specificity greater than 95% [41,42]. The BYPASS-CTCA trial, randomising 688 patients with prior CABG to CTCA prior to ICA versus ICA alone, was able to demonstrate reductions in procedural times (18.6 ± 9.5 min versus 39.5 ± 16.9 min (p < 0.001)), contrast nephropathy (3.4% versus 27.9%, p < 0.001), and improved patient satisfaction with this strategy [43]. Additionally, 1-year major adverse cardiac events were lower in the CTCA group compared to the ICA alone group (16.0% versus 29.4%, p < 0.001). These data suggest that the use of complementary imaging modalities to ICA including CTCA will be highly important in the management of saphenous vein graft failure and a potential future direction for improving clinical outcomes.

5. Management of Graft Failure

5.1. Medical Therapies to Improve Saphenous Vein Graft Patency

Several medical therapies are well established with regards to improving SVG patency post CABG. The use of aspirin early post CABG is critical to improving graft patency, with up to five times increased frequency of failure in patients not treated postoperatively [44]. The addition of P2Y12 inhibitors, vitamin K antagonists, or novel anticoagulant therapy with aspirin has not demonstrated any consistent benefit to SVG patency and is not routinely adopted in practice [45,46,47,48,49,50]. Statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce SVG occlusion rates in addition to adverse cardiac events following CABG [51,52]. The addition of ezetimibe in patients with prior CABG may attenuate the benefits of statin therapy with regards to SVG failure [53]. There is growing interest in the intensity of lipid lowering therapy and its effect on SVG failure and the potential benefit of PCSK9 inhibition. An aggressive LDL target of <2.6 mmol/L to prevent SVG disease was established in the post-coronary artery bypass graft trial and supported by a post hoc analysis of the clopidogrel after surgery for coronary artery disease (CASCADE) trial [51,54]. Furthermore, in a recent study of 231 prior CABG patients, higher circulating PCSK9 levels were associated with a higher risk for SVG occlusion after adjustment for conventional cardiovascular risk factors [55]. Several studies await the investigation of the effect of PCSK9 inhibition on SVG patency, disease rate, and occlusion and will provide important insight into the optimisation of medical therapy for these patients (NCT03900026, NCT03542110). While medical therapy is often indicated in the treatment of graft failure, many patients will present with unstable coronary syndromes or refractory symptoms and hence mandate an appropriate revascularisation procedure.

5.2. Redo CABG in the Context of Failed Saphenous Vein Grafts

The incidence of redo CABG procedures has been decreasing consistently over the past two decades in preference for percutaneous interventional techniques. Of the CABG procedures reported to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) adult cardiac surgery database, as a percentage of overall CABG volume, redo CABG had decreased from 6.4% in 2000 to 3.6% in 2009 and to 2% in 2017 [56,57]. Redo CABG has a multitude of additional challenges including cardiovascular injury on sternal reentry, a lack of graft conduits, and limitation of arterial cannulation and cross-clamping for cardiopulmonary bypass secondary to mediastinal adhesions [58]. Compared with primary CABG, hospitalisations for redo CABG were associated with a statistically significant higher in-hospital mortality of 3.2% versus 1.9% [59]. For these reasons, PCI following graft failure has gained favour over redo CABG as the initial treatment strategy [60].

5.3. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Context of Failed Saphenous Vein Grafts

The percutaneous options for the management of a failing SVG include PCI to the venous conduit and PCI to the native vessel. Although traditionally PCI to the venous conduit has been the primary treatment strategy, a growing understanding and familiarity with complex techniques including CTO PCI has expanded options for PCI to the native artery, making this a viable strategy for revascularisation when required. Studies are ongoing with regards to the superiority of this strategy in comparison to SVG PCI (NCT03805048).

5.4. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention to a Failing Saphenous Vein Graft

Percutaneous treatment of a degenerative SVG provides unique challenges secondary to a tendency for frequent superimposed thrombus on critical graft stenoses, friable lesions with marked potential for distal embolisation and subsequent no-reflow phenomena, and high rates of peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI). Estimates of no-reflow phenomena range between 6 and 10% in SVG PCI compared with 1 and 2% in native vessel PCI despite variable use of intracoronary embolic protection devices (EPD) in these studies [61,62]. The use of EPD in SVG PCI is an important consideration when attempting to mitigate the risk of distal embolisation. While their use is endorsed as a Class I recommendation by both European and American contemporary guidelines for SVG intervention [63,64], this is guided primarily by a single randomised controlled trial conducted on the first commercially available device. The Percusurge Guardwire System (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) was the first widely available EPD, consisting of a compliant balloon advanced distal to the SVG lesion to occlude flow and an aspiration catheter to remove embolic debris [65]. This device was evaluated in the SAFER trial (saphenous vein graft angioplasty free of emboli randomised) where it was recognised to lead to a 42% reduction in the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, emergency CABG, or target vessel revascularisation at 30 days [65]. This finding was noted to be primarily driven by a 46% reduction in periprocedural MI. Since this time, several studies, including data from a large-scale National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR-CathPCI Registry) have found conflicting results, with no additional benefit demonstrated with routine use of EPD during SVG intervention [65,66,67,68]. An additional significant association between the use of EPD and periprocedural complications has been demonstrated in three-year registry data [69]. Conversely, a recent meta-analysis of 11 studies including over 79,000 patients demonstrated a significantly lower odds ratio of mortality with the routine use of EPD compared with standard therapy in SVG PCI (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.5–0.94), with no significant difference with regards to MACE, target vessel revascularisation, or periprocedural and late MI [70]. The use of EPD in SVG PCI continues to be a potential consideration to reduce the established higher risk of this intervention.
In addition to concerns of distal embolisation, no-reflow phenomenon, and periprocedural MI in SVG PCI, the rates of restenosis within SVG stents are disproportionately higher than native vessel PCI despite the advances in drug-eluting stent technology. The DIVA trial comparing drug-eluting stents (DES) to bare metal stents (BMS) in the treatment of de novo SVG lesions showed rates of target vessel revascularisation of 12% and 11%, respectively, within the 12 month follow up period [71]. This is consistent with meta-analysis data published in 2018 comparing DES to BMS in SVG lesions, with target vessel revascularisation rates of 25% and 26%, respectively, over a follow-up range of 18 to 60 months [72]. Interestingly, there were no statistically significant differences in MACE rates between DES and BMS in SVG PCI within the pooled studies. When an SVG has progressed to a CTO, percutaneous intervention to the venous conduit is not recommended due to exceedingly high failure rates. A study of 34 patients with chronic SVG occlusions reported that procedural success with stent implantation was low at only 68% [73]. Of those who achieved a successful stenting result, the rate of TVR and in-stent restenosis at 18-month follow-up was high at 61 and 68%, respectively. Degenerated or chronically-occluded SVG conduits can be used by experienced operators to perform retrograde recanalisation of the native coronary, however, with good procedural success rates [74] (Figure 2). While the feasibility of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) for de-novo graft lesions has been described in several small case series, their results have been variable and as such, require further evaluation before being adopted in wider practice [75,76].

5.5. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention to the Previously Bypassed Native Coronary Artery

The alternative to SVG PCI in failed grafts is PCI to the native vessel, ‘replacing’ the grafts and restoring patency within the previously grafted coronary artery. This strategy has additional challenges to de novo coronary artery PCI; however, due to the high burden of complex atherosclerotic lesion morphology, extensive coronary calcification, and the high incidence of CTO. Observational data suggest as high as 89% prevalence of CTO lesions in diagnostic angiography of patients with grafted coronary arteries [77]. These subsequently confer a lower procedural success rate [33]. Data from the RECHARGE registry comparing native vessel CTO PCI in patients with prior CABG versus no prior CABG revealed a significantly lower success rate in post-CABG patients (71.9% vs. 88.7%, p < 0.001), with results independent of the presence of a previous graft to the target CTO vessel [33]. Further multicentre international registry data collected from 2012 to 2023 comparing 12,164 patient outcomes following CTO PCI with or without the presence of previous CABG demonstrated similar findings, with lower procedural success in the prior CABG group (80.8% vs. 86.8%, p < 0.001) in addition to higher in-hospital mortality (0.8% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001), acute myocardial infarction (0.9% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.007), and perforation (7.0% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001) [32].
When undertaking native vessel PCI, the presence of a patent SVG to the treated native coronary artery segment has raised concerns that this may compromise the durability of the PCI result due to competitive flow. This is supported by observational data demonstrating areas of turbulent, non-linear flow and greater shear stress is associated with vascular dysfunction, accelerated atherosclerotic plaque formation, and subsequent early restenosis and stent thrombosis [78,79,80,81]. The safety and feasibility of SVG ‘sacrifice’ using percutaneous vascular occlusive devices during the PCI procedure has been demonstrated in case series; however, further randomised data are needed to guide whether this should be considered routine in native vessel PCI post CABG [82].
Irrespective of the presence of a CTO or the adoption of SVG sacrifice techniques, large observational studies have reported worse short- and long-term outcomes with SVG PCI compared to native vessel PCI [83,84,85]. These studies demonstrate a higher in-hospital mortality and higher rates of postprocedural complications in SVG PCI compared with native artery PCI [83]. Additionally, patients in the SVG PCI groups were more likely to require intra-aortic balloon pump counter pulsation; have longer fluoroscopy time, larger amounts of contrast, and lower TIMI flow grade; and are more likely to require a blood transfusion. Based on this observational data, European guidelines support PCI of the bypassed native artery over the bypass graft with Level IIa (Class C) evidence [2]. Despite these known limitations, SVG PCI is still observed to be performed in up to 37% of patients with previous CABG and SVG failure [83].

6. Future Directions

To date, randomised controlled trials comparing SVG PCI to native vessel PCI in graft failure have not been performed. The PROCTOR study (percutaneous coronary intervention of native coronary artery versus bypass graft in patients with prior CABG), commenced in 2019 and estimated to complete in 2027, is the first large randomised controlled trial designed to investigate this question [86]. The study aims to recruit 584 participants with a 1:1 randomisation to native versus SVG PCI, with potential native CTOs managed per the hybrid algorithm by experienced operators. Distal protection devices for SVG PCI will be used at the discretion of the operator. The primary endpoint of this study is MACE at three years. These results are eagerly awaited to provide further guidance on optimal percutaneous management in SVG failure.

7. Conclusions

Given the high prevalence of SVG use in CABG worldwide, the challenges of SVG failure will continue to be an important management issue for both cardiac surgeons and cardiologists. While redo CABG is a feasible option in some circumstances, its high operative and in-hospital mortality risk has made percutaneous revascularisation strategies the far preferred management option in these patients. Increasing evidence demonstrating the rapid progression of not only the venous conduit but also the native bypassed coronary artery has increased our understanding of the complexity of subsequent interventions. Both SVG PCI and native vessel PCI are substantive options in SVG failure when revascularisation is required, with each providing unique challenges to the interventional cardiologist. While data on the optimum strategy are currently observational only, the results of the PROCTOR trial will provide additional guidance on the safest and most effective percutaneous management for SVG failure.

Author Contributions

L.B. and A.L. contributed equally in creating this manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. British Heart Foundation. Heart & Circulatory Disease Statistics, 2023 Compendium: British Heart Foundation. 2023. Available online: https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/our-research/heart-statistics/heart-statistics-publications/cardiovascular-disease-statistics-2023 (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  2. Neumann, F.-J.; Sousa-Uva, M.; Ahlsson, A.; Alfonso, F.; Banning, A.P.; Benedetto, U.; Byrne, R.A.; Collet, J.-P.; Falk, V.; Head, S.J.; et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur. Heart J. 2018, 40, 87–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Taggart, D.P.; D’Amico, R.; Altman, D.G. Effect of arterial revascularisation on survival: A systematic review of studies comparing bilateral and single internal mammary arteries. Lancet 2001, 358, 870–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Taggart, D.P.; Benedetto, U.; Gerry, S.; Altman, D.G.; Gray, A.M.; Lees, B.; Gaudino, M.; Zamvar, V.; Bochenek, A.; Buxton, B.; et al. Bilateral versus Single Internal-Thoracic-Artery Grafts at 10 Years. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Barner, H.B.; Barnett, M.G. Fifteen- to twenty-one-year angiographic assessment of internal thoracic artery as a bypass conduit. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1994, 57, 1526–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Tatoulis, J.; Buxton, B.F.; Fuller, J.A. Patencies of 2127 arterial to coronary conduits over 15 years. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2004, 77, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Athanasiou, T.; Saso, S.; Rao, C.; Vecht, J.; Grapsa, J.; Dunning, J.; Lemma, M.; Casula, R. Radial artery versus saphenous vein conduits for coronary artery bypass surgery: Forty years of competition—Which conduit offers better patency? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2011, 40, 208–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tranbaugh, R.F.; Schwann, T.A.; Swistel, D.G.; Dimitrova, K.R.; Al-Shaar, L.; Hoffman, D.M.; Geller, C.M.; Engoren, M.; Balaram, S.K.; Puskas, J.D.; et al. Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Using the Radial Artery, Right Internal Thoracic Artery, or Saphenous Vein as the Second Conduit. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2017, 104, 553–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Taggart, D.P. Current status of arterial grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2013, 2, 427–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Goldman, S.; Zadina, K.; Moritz, T.; Ovitt, T.; Sethi, G.; Copeland, J.G.; Thottapurathu, L.; Krasnicka, B.; Ellis, N.; Anderson, R.J.; et al. Long-term patency of saphenous vein and left internal mammary artery grafts after coronary artery bypass surgery: Results from a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2004, 44, 2149–2156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fitzgibbon, G.M.; Kafka, H.P.; Leach, A.J.; Keon, W.J.; Hooper, G.D.; Burton, J.R. Coronary bypass graft fate and patient outcome: An-giographic follow-up of 5,065 grafts related to survival and reoperation in 1,388 patients during 25 years. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 1996, 28, 616–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tabata, M.; Grab, J.D.; Khalpey, Z.; Edwards, F.H.; O’Brien, S.M.; Cohn, L.H.; Bolman, R.M., III. Prevalence and variability of internal mammary artery graft use in contemporary multivessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database. Circulation 2009, 120, 935–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Khot, U.N.; Friedman, D.T.; Pettersson, G.; Smedira, N.G.; Li, J.; Ellis, S.G. Radial artery bypass grafts have an increased oc-currence of angiographically severe stenosis and occlusion compared with left internal mammary arteries and saphenous vein grafts. Circulation 2004, 109, 2086–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Zacharias, A.; Habib, R.H.; Schwann, T.A.; Riordan, C.J.; Durham, S.J.; Shah, A. Improved Survival With Radial Artery Versus Vein Conduits in Coronary Bypass Surgery with Left Internal Thoracic Artery to Left Anterior Descending Artery Grafting. Circulation 2004, 109, 1489–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Deb, S.; Cohen, E.A.; Singh, S.K.; Une, D.; Laupacis, A.; Fremes, S.E. Radial Artery and Saphenous Vein Patency More Than 5 Years after Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Results from RAPS (Radial Artery Patency Study). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2012, 60, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Possati, G.; Gaudino, M.; Prati, F.; Alessandrini, F.; Trani, C.; Glieca, F.; Mazzari, M.A.; Luciani, N.; Schiavoni, G. Long-Term Results of the Radial Artery Used for Myocardial Revascularization. Circulation 2003, 108, 1350–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Achouh, P.; Isselmou, K.O.; Boutekadjirt, R.; D’Alessandro, C.; Pagny, J.-Y.; Fouquet, R.; Fabiani, J.-N.; Acar, C. Reappraisal of a 20-year experience with the radial artery as a conduit for coronary bypass grafting. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2012, 41, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Loop, F.D.; Lytle, B.W.; Cosgrove, D.M.; Stewart, R.W.; Goormastic, M.; Williams, G.W.; Golding, L.A.; Gill, C.C.; Taylor, P.C.; Sheldon, W.C.; et al. Influence of the inter-nal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N. Engl. J. Med. 1986, 314, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Gaudino, M.; Taggart, D.; Suma, H.; Puskas, J.D.; Crea, F.; Massetti, M. The Choice of Conduits in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015, 66, 1729–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gaudino, M.; Benedetto, U.; Fremes, S.; Biondi-Zoccai, G.; Sedrakyan, A.; Puskas, J.D.; Angelini, G.D.; Buxton, B.; Frati, G.; Hare, D.L.; et al. Radial-Artery or Saphenous-Vein Grafts in Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 2069–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bridgewater, B.; Keogh, B.; Kinsman, R.; Walton, P. Sixth National Adult Cardiac Surgical Database Report 2008; The Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  22. Campeau, L.; Enjalbert, M.; Lesperance, J.; Vaislic, C.; Grondin, C.M.; Bourassa, M.G. Atherosclerosis and late closure of aor-tocoronary saphenous vein grafts: Sequential angiographic studies at 2 weeks, 1 year, 5 to 7 years, and 10 to 12 years after surgery. Circulation 1983, 68 Pt 2, II1-7. [Google Scholar]
  23. Levisman, J.M.; Budoff, M.J.; Karlsberg, R.P. Long-term coronary artery graft patency as evaluated by 64-slice coronary computed tomographic angiography. Coron. Artery Dis. 2011, 22, 521–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shah, P.J.; Gordon, I.; Fuller, J.; Seevanayagam, S.; Rosalion, A.; Tatoulis, J.; Raman, J.S.; Buxton, B.F. Factors affecting saphenous vein graft patency: Clinical and angiographic study in 1402 symptomatic patients operated on between 1977 and 1999. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2003, 126, 1972–1977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Yazdani, S.K.; Otsuka, F.; Nakano, M.; Ladich, E.; Virmani, R. Pathology of Saphenous Vein Grafts. Interv. Cardiol. Clin. 2013, 2, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Beijk, M.A.; Harskamp, R.E. Treatment of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Failure. In Artery Bypass; Wilbert, S.A., Ed.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  27. Campeau, L.; Enjalbert, M.; Lespérance, J.; Bourassa, M.G.; Kwiterovich, P.; Wacholder, S.; Sniderman, A. The Relation of Risk Factors to the Development of Atherosclerosis in Saphenous-Vein Bypass Grafts and the Progression of Disease in the Native Circulation. A Study 10 Years after Aortocoronary Bypass Surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 1984, 311, 1329–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Cashin, W.L.; Sanmarco, M.E.; Nessim, S.A.; Blankenhorn, D.H. Accelerated Progression of Atherosclerosis in Coronary Vessels with Minimal Lesions That Are Bypassed. N. Engl. J. Med. 1984, 311, 824–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kroncke, G.M.; Kosolcharoen, P.; Clayman, J.A.; Peduzzi, P.N.; Detre, K.; Takaro, T. Five-year changes in coronary arteries of medical and surgical patients of the Veterans Administration Randomized Study of Bypass Surgery. Circulation 1988, 78 Pt 2, I144–I150. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  30. Hamada, Y.; Kawachi, K.; Yamamoto, T.; Nakata, T.; Kashu, Y.; Watanabe, Y.; Sato, M. Effect of coronary artery bypass grafting on native coronary artery stenosis. Comparison of internal thoracic artery and saphenous vein grafts. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2001, 42, 159–164. [Google Scholar]
  31. Michael, T.T.; Karmpaliotis, D.; Brilakis, E.S.; Abdullah, S.M.; Kirkland, B.L.; Mishoe, K.L.; Lembo, N.; Kalynych, A.; Carlson, H.; Banerjee, S.; et al. Impact of prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery on chronic total occlusion revascularisation: Insights from a multicentre US registry. Heart 2013, 99, 1515–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Alexandrou, M.; Kostantinis, S.; Rempakos, A.; Simsek, B.; Karacsonyi, J.; Choi, J.W.; Poommipanit, P.; Alaswad, K.; Basir, M.B.; Megaly, M.; et al. Outcomes of Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Patients with Previous Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery. Am. J. Cardiol. 2023, 205, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Budassi, S.; Zivelonghi, C.; Dens, J.; Bagnall, A.J.; Knaapen, P.; Avran, A.; Spratt, J.C.; Walsh, S.; Faurie, B.; Agostoni, P.; et al. Impact of prior coronary artery bypass grafting in patients undergoing chronic total occlusion-percutaneous coronary intervention: Procedural and clinical outcomes from the REgistry of Crossboss and Hybrid procedures in FrAnce, the NetheRlands, BelGium, and UnitEd Kingdom (RECHARGE). Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2021, 97, E51–E60. [Google Scholar]
  34. Weintraub, W.S.; Clements, S.D., Jr.; Crisco, L.V.T.; Guyton, R.A.; Craver, J.M.; Jones, E.L.; Hatcher, C.R., Jr. Twenty-year survival after coronary artery surgery: An institutional perspective from Emory University. Circulation 2003, 107, 1271–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Adelborg, K.; Horváth-Puhó, E.; Schmidt, M.; Munch, T.; Pedersen, L.; Nielsen, P.H.; Bøtker, H.E.; Toft Sørensen, H. Thirty-Year Mortality after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Danish Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study. Circ. Cardiovasc. Qual. Outcomes 2017, 10, e002708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fosbøl, E.L.; Zhao, Y.; Shahian, D.M.; Grover, F.L.; Edwards, F.H.; Peterson, E.D. Repeat coronary revascularization after coronary artery bypass surgery in older adults: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ national experience, 1991–2007. Circulation 2013, 127, 1656–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Xenogiannis, I.; Tajti, P.; Hall, A.B.; Alaswad, K.; Rinfret, S.; Nicholson, W.; Karmpaliotis, D.; Mashayekhi, K.; Furkalo, S.; Cavalcante, J.L.; et al. Update on Cardiac Catheterization in Patients with Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2019, 12, 1635–1649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Gobel, F.L.; Stewart, W.J.; Campeau, L.; Hickey, A.; Herd, J.A.; Forman, S.; White, C.W.; Rosenberg, Y. Safety of coronary arteriography in clinically stable patients following coronary bypass surgery. Post CABG Clinical Trial Investigators. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Diagn. 1998, 45, 376–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Delewi, R.; Hoebers, L.P.; Råmunddal, T.; Henriques, J.P.; Angerås, O.; Stewart, J.; Robertsson, L.; Wahlin, M.; Petursson, P.; Piek, J.J.; et al. Clinical and procedural characteristics asso-ciated with higher radiation exposure during percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary angiography. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2013, 6, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Nilsson, T.; Lagerqvist, B.; Tornvall, P. Coronary angiography of patients with a previous coronary artery by-pass operation is associated with a three times increased risk for neurological complications. A report from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). Scand. Cardiovasc. J. 2009, 43, 374–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Barbero, U.; Iannaccone, M.; D’Ascenzo, F.; Barbero, C.; Mohamed, A.; Annone, U.; Benedetto, S.; Celentani, D.; Gagliardi, M.; Moretti, C.; et al. 64 slice-coronary computed tomography sensitivity and specificity in the evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft stenosis: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Cardiol. 2016, 216, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mushtaq, S.; Conte, E.; Pontone, G.; Pompilio, G.; Guglielmo, M.; Annoni, A.; Baggiano, A.; Formenti, A.; Mancini, M.E.; Muscogiuri, G.; et al. Interpretability of coronary CT angiography per-formed with a novel whole-heart coverage high-definition CT scanner in 300 consecutive patients with coronary artery bypass grafts. J. Cardiovasc. Comput. Tomogr. 2020, 14, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jones, D.A.; Beirne, A.-M.; Kelham, M.; Rathod, K.S.; Andiapen, M.; Wynne, L.; Godec, T.; Forooghi, N.; Ramaseshan, R.; Moon, J.C.; et al. Computed Tomography Cardiac Angiography Before Invasive Coronary Angiography in Patients with Previous Bypass Surgery: The BYPASS-CTCA Trial. Circulation 2023, 148, 1371–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zimmermann, N.; Gams, E.; Hohlfeld, T. Aspirin in coronary artery bypass surgery: New aspects of and alternatives for an old antithrombotic agent. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2008, 34, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kulik, A.; Le May, M.R.; Voisine, P.; Tardif, J.-C.; DeLarochelliere, R.; Naidoo, S.; Wells, G.A.; Mesana, T.G.; Ruel, M. Aspirin plus clopidogrel versus aspirin alone after coronary artery bypass grafting: The clopidogrel after surgery for coronary artery disease (CASCADE) Trial. Circulation 2010, 122, 2680–2687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Zhao, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Xu, Z.; Cheng, Z.; Mei, J.; Chen, X.; Wang, X. Effect of Ticagrelor Plus Aspirin, Ticagrelor Alone, or Aspirin Alone on Saphenous Vein Graft Patency 1 Year after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2018, 319, 1677–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Willemsen, L.M.; Janssen, P.W.; Peper, J.; Soliman-Hamad, M.A.; van Straten, A.H.; Klein, P.; Hackeng, C.M.; Sonker, U.; Bekker, M.W.; von Birgelen, C.; et al. Effect of Adding Ticagrelor to Standard Aspirin on Saphenous Vein Graft Patency in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (POPular CABG): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Circulation 2020, 142, 1799–1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Van der Meer, J.; Hillege, H.L.; van Gilst, W.H.; Lie, K.I.; Kootstra, G.J.; Ascoop, C.A.P.L.; Pfisterer, M. Prevention of one-year vein-graft occlusion after aortocoronary-bypass surgery: A comparison of low-dose aspirin, low-dose aspirin plus dipyridamole, and oral antico-agulants. The CABADAS Research Group of the Interuniversity Cardiology Institute of The Netherlands. Lancet 1993, 342, 257–264. [Google Scholar]
  49. Pfisterer, M.; Jockers, G.; Regenass, S.; Schmitt, H.; Skarvan, K.; Hasse, J.; Burkart, F.; Meyer, B.; Burckhardt, D.; Müller-Brand, J.; et al. Trial of low-dose aspirin plus dipyridamole versus anticoagulants for prevention of aortocoronary vein graft occlusion. Lancet 1989, 334, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lamy, A.; Eikelboom, J.; Sheth, T.; Connolly, S.; Bosch, J.; Fox, K.A.; Zhu, J.; Lonn, E.; Dagenais, G.; Widimsky, P.; et al. Rivaroxaban, Aspirin, or Both to Prevent Early Coronary Bypass Graft Occlusion: The COMPASS-CABG Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 73, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Campeau, L.; Knatterud, G.L.; Domanski, M.; Hunninghake, D.B.; White, C.W.; Geller, N.L.; Rosenberg, Y. The effect of aggressive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and low-dose anticoagulation on obstructive changes in saphenous-vein coronary-artery bypass grafts. N. Engl. J. Med. 1997, 336, 153–162. [Google Scholar]
  52. Liakopoulos, O.J.; Choi, Y.H.; Haldenwang, P.L.; Strauch, J.; Wittwer, T.; Dörge, H.; Stamm, C.; Wassmer, G.; Wahlers, T. Impact of preoperative statin therapy on adverse postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: A meta-analysis of over 30,000 patients. Eur. Heart J. 2008, 29, 1548–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Eisen, A.; Cannon, C.P.; Blazing, M.A.; Bohula, E.A.; Park, J.-G.; Murphy, S.A.; White, J.A.; Giugliano, R.P.; Braunwald, E. The benefit of adding ezetimibe to statin therapy in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery and acute coronary syndrome in the IMPROVE-IT trial. Eur. Heart J. 2016, 37, 3576–3584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kulik, A.; Voisine, P.; Mathieu, P.; Masters, R.G.; Mesana, T.G.; Le May, M.R.; Ruel, M. Statin Therapy and Saphenous Vein Graft Disease after Coronary Bypass Surgery: Analysis from the CASCADE Randomized Trial. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2011, 92, 1284–1291, discussion 90-1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Gao, J.; Wang, H.-B.; Xiao, J.-Y.; Ren, M.; Reilly, K.H.; Li, Y.-M.; Liu, Y. Association between proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 and late saphenous vein graft disease after coronary artery bypass grafting: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e021951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Ghanta, R.K.; Kaneko, T.; Gammie, J.S.; Sheng, S.; Aranki, S.F. Evolving trends of reoperative coronary artery bypass grafting: An analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2013, 145, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sabik, J.F., 3rd; Blackstone, E.H.; Gillinov, A.M.; Smedira, N.G.; Lytle, B.W. Occurrence and risk factors for reintervention after coronary artery bypass grafting. Circulation 2006, 114 (Suppl. S1), I454–I460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sajja, L.R. A narrative review of redo coronary artery bypass grafting. AME Med. J. 2020, 6, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Elbadawi, A.; Hamed, M.; Elgendy, I.Y.; Omer, M.A.; Ogunbayo, G.O.; Megaly, M.; Denktas, A.; Ghanta, R.; Jimenez, E.; Brilakis, E.; et al. Outcomes of Reoperative Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in the United States. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2020, 9, e016282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Harskamp, R.E.; Beijk, M.A.; Damman, P.; Kuijt, W.J.; Woudstra, P.; Grundeken, M.J.; Kloek, J.J.; Tijssen, J.G.; de Mol, B.A.; de Winter, R.J. Clinical outcome after surgical or percuta-neous revascularization in coronary bypass graft failure. J. Cardiovasc. Med. 2013, 14, 438–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Abdelrahman, A.; Dębski, M.; More, R.; Abdelaziz, H.K.; Choudhury, T.; Eichhofer, J.; Patel, B. One-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention in native coronary arteries versus saphenous vein grafts in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Cardiol. J. 2022, 29, 396–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cohen, N.S.; Dinh, D.; Ajani, A.; Clark, D.; Brennan, A.; Tie, E.N.; Dagan, M.; Hamilton, G.; Sebastian, M.; Shaw, J.; et al. Outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (cabg). Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42 (Suppl. S1), ehab724-2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Levine, G.N.; Bates, E.R.; Blankenship, J.C.; Bailey, S.R.; Bittl, J.A.; Cercek, B.; Chambers, C.E.; Ellis, S.G.; Guyton, R.A.; Hollenberg, S.M.; et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2013, 82, E266–E355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kolh, P.; Wijns, W.; Danchin, N.; Di Mario, C.; Falk, V.; Folliguet, T.; Garg, S.; Huber, K.; James, S.; Knuuti, J.; et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2010, 38, S1–S52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Baim, D.S.; Wahr, D.; George, B.; Leon, M.B.; Greenberg, J.; Cutlip, D.E.; Kaya, U.; Popma, J.J.; Ho, K.K.; Kuntz, R.E. Randomized Trial of a Distal Embolic Protection Device During Percutaneous Intervention of Saphenous Vein Aorto-Coronary Bypass Grafts. Circulation 2002, 105, 1285–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Dixon, S.R.; Mann, J.T.; Lauer, M.A.; Casale, P.N.; Dippel, E.J.; Strumpf, R.K.; Feldman, R.L.; Shear, W.; Resar, J.R.; Zimmer, S.D.; et al. A randomized, controlled trial of saphenous vein graft intervention with a filter-based distal embolic protection device: TRAP trial. J. Interv. Cardiol. 2005, 18, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Golwala, H.; Hawkins, B.M.; Stavrakis, S.; Abu-Fadel, M.S. Embolic protection device use and outcomes in patients receiving sa-phenous vein graft interventions—A single-center experience. J. Invasive Cardiol. 2012, 24, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  68. Iqbal, M.B.; Nadra, I.J.; Ding, L.; Fung, A.; Aymong, E.; Chan, A.W.; Hodge, S.; Della Siega, A.; Robinson, S.D.; British Columbia Cardiac Registry Investigators. Embolic protection device use and its association with pro-cedural safety and long-term outcomes following saphenous vein graft intervention: An analysis from the British Columbia Cardiac registry. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016, 88, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Brennan, J.M.; Al-Hejily, W.; Dai, D.; Shaw, R.E.; Trilesskaya, M.; Rao, S.V.; Brilakis, E.S.; Anstrom, K.J.; Messenger, J.C.; Peterson, E.D.; et al. Three-year outcomes associated with embolic protec-tion in saphenous vein graft intervention: Results in 49 325 senior patients in the Medicare-linked National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2015, 8, e001403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yu, J.; Zhang, J.; Ni, J.; Shou, W.; Fang, Y.; Fu, S. Outcomes Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Saphenous Vein Grafts with and without Embolic Protection Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2022, 8, 726579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Brilakis, E.S.; Edson, R.; Bhatt, D.L.; Goldman, S.; Holmes, D.R.; Rao, S.V.; Shunk, K.; Rangan, B.V.; Mavromatis, K.; Ramanathan, K.; et al. Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in sa-phenous vein grafts: A double-blind, randomised trial. Lancet 2018, 391, 1997–2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Patel, N.J.; Bavishi, C.; Atti, V.; Tripathi, A.; Nalluri, N.; Cohen, M.G.; Kini, A.S.; Sharma, S.K.; Dangas, G.; Bhatt, D.L. Drug-Eluting Stents versus Bare-Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018, 11, e007045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Al-Lamee, R.; Ielasi, A.; Latib, A.; Godino, C.; Ferraro, M.; Arioli, F.; Mussardo, M.; Piraino, D.; Figini, F.; Carlino, M.; et al. Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes after Percutaneous Recanalization of Chronic Total Saphenous Vein Graft Occlusion Using Modern Techniques. Am. J. Cardiol. 2010, 106, 1721–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Escaned, J. Secondary revascularization after CABG surgery. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2012, 9, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Björkman, P.; Kokkonen, T.; Albäck, A.; Venermo, M. Drug-Coated versus Plain Balloon Angioplasty in Bypass Vein Grafts (the DRECOREST I-Study). Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2019, 55, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lin, L.; Lu, W.; Wang, X.; Pan, L.; Wang, X.; Zheng, X.; Li, R.; Shan, Y.; Peng, M.; Qiu, C. Short-term outcomes of drug-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent for de novo saphenous vein graft lesions in coronary heart disease. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2023, 10, 982880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Jeroudi, O.M.; Alomar, M.E.; Michael, T.T.; El Sabbagh, A.; Patel, V.G.; Mogabgab, O.; Fuh, E.; Sherbet, D.; Lo, N.; Roesle, M.; et al. Prevalence and management of coronary chronic total occlusions in a tertiary veterans affairs hospital. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2014, 84, 637–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Uematsu, M.; Ohara, Y.; Navas, J.P.; Nishida, K.; Murphy, T.J.; Alexander, R.W.; Nerem, R.M.; Harrison, D.G.; Casey, D.P.; Ueda, K.; et al. Regulation of endothelial cell nitric oxide synthase mRNA expression by shear stress. Am. J. Physiol. 1995, 269 Pt 1, C1371–C1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Chiu, J.-J.; Chien, S.; Venturini, G.; Malagrino, P.A.; Padilha, K.; Tanaka, L.Y.; Laurindo, F.R.; Dariolli, R.; Carvalho, V.M.; Cardozo, K.H.M.; et al. Effects of Disturbed Flow on Vascular Endothelium: Pathophysiological Basis and Clinical Perspectives. Physiol. Rev. 2011, 91, 327–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Asakura, T.; Karino, T. Flow patterns and spatial distribution of atherosclerotic lesions in human coronary arteries. Circ. Res. 1990, 66, 1045–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Samady, H.; Eshtehardi, P.; McDaniel, M.C.; Suo, J.; Dhawan, S.S.; Maynard, C.; Timmins, L.H.; Quyyumi, A.A.; Giddens, D.P. Coronary artery wall shear stress is associated with progression and transformation of atherosclerotic plaque and arterial remodeling in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 2011, 124, 779–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wilson, S.J.; Hanratty, C.G.; Spence, M.S.; Owens, C.G.; Rigger, J.; Spratt, J.C.; Walsh, S.J. Saphenous Vein Graft Sacrifice Following Native Vessel PCI is Safe and Associated with Favourable Longer-Term Outcomes. Cardiovasc. Revascularization Med. 2019, 20, 1048–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Brilakis, E.S.; Rao, S.V.; Banerjee, S.; Goldman, S.; Shunk, K.A.; Holmes, D.R.; Honeycutt, E.; Roe, M.T. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Native Arteries versus Bypass Grafts in Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Patients: A Report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2011, 4, 844–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Brilakis, E.S.; O’Donnell, C.I.; Penny, W.; Armstrong, E.J.; Tsai, T.; Maddox, T.M.; Plomondon, M.E.; Banerjee, S.; Rao, S.V.; Garcia, S.; et al. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Native Coronary Arteries Versus Bypass Grafts in Patients with Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Insights from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016, 9, 884–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Chrysostomos, A.M.; Tushar, K.; Omar, C.; Jonathan, H.; Roby, D.R. Superior long term outcome associated with native vessel versus graft vessel PCI following secondary PCI in patients with prior CABG. Int. J. Cardiol. 2017, 228, 563–569. [Google Scholar]
  86. De Winter, R.W.; Walsh, S.J.; Hanratty, C.G.; Spratt, J.C.; Sprengers, R.W.; Twisk, J.W.; Vegting, I.; Schumacher, S.P.; Bom, M.J.; Hoek, R.; et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of native coronary artery versus saphenous vein graft in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Rationale and design of the multicenter, randomized PROCTOR trial. Am. Heart J. 2023, 257, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 12 07118 g001
Figure 1. A 72-year-old diabetic gentleman presented acutely to our facility with a non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Index coronary angiography revealed three-vessel disease, with severe diffuse left anterior descending (LAD) disease, severe focal first obtuse marginal (OM1) disease, and moderate ostial, mid, and distal right coronary artery (RCA) disease, with an invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) of 0.80 (a). He underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with a LIMA to his mid-LAD and a saphenous vein graft (SVG) to his distal RCA, with no suitable graft target identified for his OM1. Eight months following his CABG, this gentleman represented acutely to our facility with another NSTEMI. Repeat coronary angiography demonstrated rapid progression of his RCA disease, with a now occluded distal RCA (b). In the same period, his SVG to RCA had degenerated significantly, with a long segment stenosis in its mid-segment, with further sequential severe lesions in its distal third (c). This gentleman was referred for chronic total occlusion (CTO) PCI, with contralateral injections performed during this procedure demonstrating the extent of progression of native RCA disease with an occluded distal RCA (d). His native RCA was recanalized percutaneously with drug-eluting stents to replace his failing SVG with a good angiographic result (e).
Figure 1. A 72-year-old diabetic gentleman presented acutely to our facility with a non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Index coronary angiography revealed three-vessel disease, with severe diffuse left anterior descending (LAD) disease, severe focal first obtuse marginal (OM1) disease, and moderate ostial, mid, and distal right coronary artery (RCA) disease, with an invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) of 0.80 (a). He underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with a LIMA to his mid-LAD and a saphenous vein graft (SVG) to his distal RCA, with no suitable graft target identified for his OM1. Eight months following his CABG, this gentleman represented acutely to our facility with another NSTEMI. Repeat coronary angiography demonstrated rapid progression of his RCA disease, with a now occluded distal RCA (b). In the same period, his SVG to RCA had degenerated significantly, with a long segment stenosis in its mid-segment, with further sequential severe lesions in its distal third (c). This gentleman was referred for chronic total occlusion (CTO) PCI, with contralateral injections performed during this procedure demonstrating the extent of progression of native RCA disease with an occluded distal RCA (d). His native RCA was recanalized percutaneously with drug-eluting stents to replace his failing SVG with a good angiographic result (e).
Jcm 12 07118 g001
Jcm 12 07118 g002
Figure 2. An 80-year-old diabetic gentleman with a background of remote coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 1997 (LIMA-LAD, SVG-OM, and SVG-RCA) and PCI to SVG-RCA in 2020 presented acutely to our facility with an inferior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). He was transferred for emergency coronary angiography where his culprit lesion was identified as his SVG to RCA which had occluded proximal to his previous drug-eluting stent (DES). His native RCA was chronically occluded in the mid-segment (a). He underwent thrombus aspiration and balloon angioplasty to the SVG with adequate antegrade flow restored. In discussion with our local complex total occlusion (CTO) operators, this gentleman was referred for urgent staged CTO PCI to his native RCA in preference of repeat SVG PCI. Contralateral injections during the CTO procedure demonstrated a long segment mid-RCA CTO in addition to a diffusely diseased SVG, with a severe lesion in the mid-segment and residual heavy thrombus burden despite GPIIb/IIIa inhibition and thrombus aspiration (b). Using the degenerated venous conduit, retrograde access was achieved to the CTO segment where reverse controlled antegrade and retrograde tracking (reverse-CART) and wire externalisation were able to be achieved (c). The native RCA was subsequently recanalized with DES to replace the failing SVG with a good angiographic result (d). Given the extent of disease in the SVG, the venous conduit was not procedurally occluded during the PCI.
Figure 2. An 80-year-old diabetic gentleman with a background of remote coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 1997 (LIMA-LAD, SVG-OM, and SVG-RCA) and PCI to SVG-RCA in 2020 presented acutely to our facility with an inferior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). He was transferred for emergency coronary angiography where his culprit lesion was identified as his SVG to RCA which had occluded proximal to his previous drug-eluting stent (DES). His native RCA was chronically occluded in the mid-segment (a). He underwent thrombus aspiration and balloon angioplasty to the SVG with adequate antegrade flow restored. In discussion with our local complex total occlusion (CTO) operators, this gentleman was referred for urgent staged CTO PCI to his native RCA in preference of repeat SVG PCI. Contralateral injections during the CTO procedure demonstrated a long segment mid-RCA CTO in addition to a diffusely diseased SVG, with a severe lesion in the mid-segment and residual heavy thrombus burden despite GPIIb/IIIa inhibition and thrombus aspiration (b). Using the degenerated venous conduit, retrograde access was achieved to the CTO segment where reverse controlled antegrade and retrograde tracking (reverse-CART) and wire externalisation were able to be achieved (c). The native RCA was subsequently recanalized with DES to replace the failing SVG with a good angiographic result (d). Given the extent of disease in the SVG, the venous conduit was not procedurally occluded during the PCI.
Jcm 12 07118 g002
Table 1. Saphenous venous graft failure rates post index CABG procedure.
Table 1. Saphenous venous graft failure rates post index CABG procedure.
SVG Failure Rates Post Index CABGReferences
Less than 3 years11–41%[8,9,13,14]
5 to 10 years19–33%[10,15,16,17]
Greater than 10 years39–61%[10,11,22,23,24]
Table 2. Repeat revascularisation rates post index CABG procedure.
Table 2. Repeat revascularisation rates post index CABG procedure.
Repeat Revascularisation Rates Post Index CABG ProcedureReferences
1 year2%[36]
5 years7%[36]
10 years13%[36]
18 years16%[36]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Back, L.; Ladwiniec, A. Saphenous Vein Graft Failure: Current Challenges and a Review of the Contemporary Percutaneous Options for Management. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 7118. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227118

AMA Style

Back L, Ladwiniec A. Saphenous Vein Graft Failure: Current Challenges and a Review of the Contemporary Percutaneous Options for Management. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(22):7118. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227118

Chicago/Turabian Style

Back, Liam, and Andrew Ladwiniec. 2023. "Saphenous Vein Graft Failure: Current Challenges and a Review of the Contemporary Percutaneous Options for Management" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 22: 7118. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227118

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop