This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Google Scholar Articles by Garcia-Tejada, J. Articles by Tascon, J. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Garcia-Tejada, J. Articles by Tascon, J. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Percutaneous Revascularization of Grafts Versus Native Coronary Arteries in Postcoronary Artery Bypass Graft Patients

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: juliogtejada{at}yahoo.com.

	Abstract

In patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery, it is unknown whether better results may be obtained with percutaneous interventions of grafts versus native arteries. The clinical outcomes in 84 patients undergoing percutaneous interventions of either grafts (n = 31) or native arteries (n = 53) were compared. Procedural success rate was 95.3% (96.8% in the graft group vs 94.4% in the native group, P = .3). Mean follow-up was 19 ± 7 months. The incidence of major adverse events was 14.2% (12.9% vs 15.1% in the graft and native groups, respectively; P = .8), mortality rate was 3.5% (6.4% vs 1.8% in the graft and native groups, respectively; P = .3), and targetlesion revascularization was performed in 4.7% (6.4% vs 3.7% in the graft and native groups, respectively, P = .6). In conclusion, both graft or native percutaneous interventions were similar for immediate and midterm clinical outcomes. The relatively low risk need for target-lesion revascularization obtained with both strategies is encouraging.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?