Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions within coronary artery bypass grafts

4Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction: The long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) within coronary artery bypasses are still poor as compared to those within native coronary arteries. Thus, we aimed to assess predictors of long-term clinical outcomes after PCIs of coronary bypasses. Material and methods: We enrolled 194 patients after PCIs of coronary artery bypasses at the mean age of 69.5 ±8.3 years (73.2% male). The primary study endpoint was a combination of target-vessel revascularization (TVR), target-lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and death. The mean follow-up was 964 ±799.1 days and was completed among 156 patients. Multivariate analysis was used to assess determinants of study endpoints during follow-up. Moreover, we compared survival curves according to the type of PCI and presence of anti-embolic protection. Results: The primary endpoint of the study occurred in 59.7% of patients after the mean time of 669.6 ±598.7 days. The TVR occurred in 37.9% of individuals, TLR in 24.2%, MI in 26.3%, stroke in 4.2%, CABG in 2.1% and death in 30.5% of patients. In Cox multivariate analysis, PCI of two or more bypasses (p < 0.01), post-dilatation (p < 0.05) and no-reflow (p < 0.05) were the independent determinants of the primary study endpoint. No significant impact of anti-embolic protection devices on long-term outcomes was observed. Conclusions: Percutaneous coronary interventions of two or more bypasses, post-dilatation and no-reflow are predictors of worse outcome in patients undergoing PCI within coronary artery bypass grafts.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Januszek, R., Siudak, Z., Dziewierz, A., Rakowski, T., Dudek, D., & Bartuś, S. (2021). Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions within coronary artery bypass grafts. Archives of Medical Science, 17(3), 628–637. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2018.75608

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free