Background: We sought to evaluate the contemporary use of embolic protection devices (EPDs) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions. Methods: We examined EPD use in the stenting of saphenous vein grafts (SOS) trial, in which 80 patients with 112 lesions in 88 SVGs were randomized to a bare metal stent (39 patients, 43 grafts, and 55 lesions) or paclitaxel-eluting stent (41 patients, 45 grafts, and 57 lesions). Results: An EPD was used in 60 of 112 lesions (54%). A Filterwire (Boston Scientific) was used in 70% of EPD-treated lesions, Spider (ev3, Plymouth, Minnesota) in 12%, Proxis (St. Jude, Minneapolis, Minnesota) in 12%, and Guardwire (Medtronic, Santa Rosa, California) in 7%. Of the remaining 52 lesions, an EPD was not utilized in 13 lesions (25%) because the lesion was near the distal anastomosis, in 14 lesions (27%) because of an ostial location, in one lesion (2%) because of small SVG size, in two instent restenosis lesions (4%) because of low distal embolization risk, and in 22 lesions (42%) because of operator's preference even though use of an EPD was feasible. Procedural success was achieved in 77 patients (96%); in one patient a Filterwire was entrapped requiring emergency coronary bypass graft surgery and two patients had acute stent thrombosis. Conclusion: In spite of their proven efficacy, EPDs were utilized in approximately half of SVG interventions in the SOS trial. Availability of a proximal protection device could allow protection of ∼25% of unprotected lesions, yet operator discretion appears to be the major determinant of EPD use.
- Bypass grafts-coronary
- Percutaneous coronary intervention
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine