HOMEPRODUCTSCOMPANYCONTACTFAQResearchDictionaryPharmaSign Up FREE or Login

Three-year outcomes associated with embolic protection in saphenous vein graft intervention: results in 49 325 senior patients in the Medicare-linked National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry.

AbstractBACKGROUND:
Information is limited on contemporary use and outcomes of embolic protection devices (EPDs) in saphenous vein graft interventions.
METHODS AND RESULTS:
We formed a longitudinal cohort (2005-2009; n=49 325) by linking National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry to Medicare claims to examine the association between EPD use and both procedural and long-term outcomes among seniors (65+ years), adjusting for clinical factors using propensity and instrumental variable methodologies. Prespecified high-risk subgroups included acute coronary syndrome and de novo or graft body lesions. EPDs were used in 21.2% of saphenous vein grafts (median age, 75; 23% women) and were more common in acute coronary syndrome (versus non-acute coronary syndrome; 22% versus 19%), de novo (versus restenotic; 22% versus 14%), and graft body lesions (versus aortic and distal anastomosis; 24% versus 20% versus 8%, respectively). EPDs were associated with a slightly higher incidence of procedural complications, including no reflow (3.9% versus 2.8%; P<0.001), vessel dissection (1.3% versus 1.1%; P=0.05), perforation (0.7% versus 0.4%; P=0.001), and periprocedural myocardial infarction (2.8% versus 1.8%; P<0.001). By 3 years, death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization occurred in 25%, 15%, and 30% of cases, respectively. EPD use was associated with a similar adjusted risk of death (propensity score-matched hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-1.02), myocardial infarction (propensity score-matched hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.09), and repeat revascularization (propensity score-matched hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.08) in the overall cohort and high-risk subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS:
In this contemporary cohort, EPDs were used more commonly among patients with high-risk clinical indications, yet there was no evidence of improved acute- or long-term outcomes. Further prospective studies are needed to support routine EPD use.
AuthorsJ Matthew Brennan, Wesam Al-Hejily, David Dai, Richard E Shaw, Marina Trilesskaya, Sunil V Rao, Emmanouil S Brilakis, Kevin J Anstrom, John C Messenger, Eric D Peterson, Pamela S Douglas, Michael H Sketch Jr
JournalCirculation. Cardiovascular interventions (Circ Cardiovasc Interv) Vol. 8 Issue 3 Pg. e001403 (Mar 2015) ISSN: 1941-7632 [Electronic] United States
PMID25714391 (Publication Type: Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't)
Copyright© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.
Topics
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Embolic Protection Devices
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Longitudinal Studies
  • Male
  • Medicare (statistics & numerical data)
  • Registries
  • Saphenous Vein (surgery)
  • Treatment Outcome
  • United States
  • Vascular Grafting (methods)

Join CureHunter, for free Research Interface BASIC access!

Take advantage of free CureHunter research engine access to explore the best drug and treatment options for any disease. Find out why thousands of doctors, pharma researchers and patient activists around the world use CureHunter every day.
Realize the full power of the drug-disease research graph!


Choose Username:
Email:
Password:
Verify Password:
Enter Code Shown: