American Journal of Cardiology
Volume 100, Issue 7 , Pages 1114-1118, 1 October 2007

Utilization of Distal Embolic Protection in Saphenous Vein Graft Interventions (An Analysis of 19,546 Patients in the American College of Cardiology–National Cardiovascular Data Registry)

  • Sameer K. Mehta, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiology, The Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri
  • ,
  • Andrew D. Frutkin, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiology, The Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri
  • ,
  • Sarah Milford-Beland, MS

      Affiliations

    • Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina
  • ,
  • Lloyd W. Klein, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiology, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
  • ,
  • Richard E. Shaw, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Clinical Research, Sutter Pacific Heart Centers, San Francisco, California
  • ,
  • William S. Weintraub, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Outcomes Research, Christiana Care Health Systems, Atlanta, Georgia
  • ,
  • Ronald J. Krone, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri
  • ,
  • H. Vernon Anderson, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
  • ,
  • Michael A. Kutcher, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiology, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
  • ,
  • Steven P. Marso, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Cardiology, The Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Tel: 816-932-5798; fax: 816-932-5773.

Received 21 February 2007; received in revised form 17 April 2007; accepted 25 April 2007.

In clinical trials, the use of a distal embolic protection device (EPD) during saphenous vein graft (SVG) percutaneous intervention (PCI) decreases the incidence of major adverse events. However, the frequency of EPD use during SVG PCI in clinical practice is unknown. We evaluated 19,546 SVG PCI procedures in the American College of Cardiology–National Cardiovascular Data Registry from January 1, 2004, through March 30, 2006. EPD use was the primary outcome. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to assess for characteristics associated with EPD use and to determine the association between EPD use and 2 outcomes: no-reflow and in-hospital mortality. EPDs were used in 22% of patients who underwent SVG PCI. Characteristics independently associated with EPD use were age (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, p = 0.03), male gender (OR 1.12, p = 0.02), older grafts (p <0.001 for the group), longer lesions (OR 1.16, p <0.001), and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association class C lesions (OR 1.41, p <0.001). Patients were less likely to receive an EPD if they had class <3 grade flow according to Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction classification (p <0.001) or previously treated lesions (OR 0.55, p <0.001). There was a weak correlation between annual hospital PCI volume and EPD use (r = 0.2, p <0.001). Nineteen percent of centers did not use EPDs and 41% used them in <10% of cases. EPD use was independently associated with a lower incidence of no-reflow (OR 0.68, p = 0.032), but not in-hospital mortality (1.0% vs 0.9%, p = NS). In conclusion, in current practice, EPDs are used in <25% of SVG PCI procedures.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0002-9149(07)01254-4

doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2007.04.058

American Journal of Cardiology
Volume 100, Issue 7 , Pages 1114-1118, 1 October 2007