Choice of Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Saphenous Vein Grafts
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 25, 2026

Synergizing Antegrade Endoscopic with Bridging Vein Harvesting for Improvement of Great Saphenous Vein Graft Quality from the Lower Leg
Published on: November 19, 2019
Javaid Iqbal1, Chun Shing Kwok1, Evangelos Kontopantelis1
1From the South Yorkshire Cardiothoracic Centre, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom (J.I.); Keele Cardiovascular Research Group, Keele University, Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom (C.S.K., M.A.M.); University Hospital North Staffordshire, United Kingdom (C.S.K., A.L., R.B., M.A.M.); Institute of Population Health (E.K.) and Farr Institute (M.A.M.), University of Manchester, United Kingdom; The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom (M.A.d.B.); Department of Cardiology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom (P.F.L.); Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom (A.G., A.Z.); and Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, United Kingdom (T.K.).
Background:
There are limited data on comparison of contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) platforms, previous generation DES, and bare-metal stents (BMS) for percutaneous coronary intervention in saphenous vein grafts (SVG). We aimed to assess clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention to SVG in patients receiving bare-metal stents (BMS), first-generation DES, and newer generation DES in a large unselected national data set from the BCIS (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society).
Methods And Results:
Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to SVG in the United Kingdom from January 2006 to December 2013 were divided into 3 groups according to stent use: BMS, first-generation DES, and newer generation DES group. Study outcomes included in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality. Patients (n=15 003) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention to SVG in England and Wales during the study period. Of these, 38% received BMS, 15% received first-generation DES, and 47% received second-generation DES. The rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events were significantly lower in patients treated with second-generation DES (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.68; P<0.001), but not with first-generation DES, compared with BMS-treated patients. Similarly, 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.59; P<0.001) and 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.71; P<0.001) were lower in patients treated with second-generation DES, but not with first-generation DES, compared with the patients treated with BMS.
Conclusions:
Patients receiving second-generation DES for the treatment SVG disease have lower rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality, compared with those receiving BMS.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease V: Postoperative Nursing Management
Varicose Veins II: Diagnostic Studies and Interprofessional Care
Hemodialysis I: Introduction

