Total amount: € 0,00
Official Journal of the Italian Society of Angiology and Vascular Pathology
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,752
Online ISSN 1827-1618
D’Ascenzo F., Bollati M., Quadri G., Gonella A., Di Cuia M., De Simone V., Colaci C., Reitano C., Vagnarelli M., Biondi Zoccai G., Moretti C., Sciuto F., Omedè P., Sheiban I., Gaita F.
Division of Cardiology, University of Turin Turin, Italy
Aim: Many randomized trials have compared coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of efficacy, but data comparing outcomes of patients in which these two techniques have failed are lacking.
Methods: We included patients undergoing PCI at our center between July 2002 and December 2004. Subjects were distinguished in 2 groups: those with at least one occluded or stenotic saphenous vein graft (CABG failure), and those with at least one stent with angiographically documented restenosis (PCI failure). The primary endpoint was the long-term rate of major adverse clinical events.
Results: Two hundred and thirthy four patients were included, with a medium follow up of 61±13 months; 134 were assigned to the CABG failure group, and 104 to the PCI failure group, sharing high rates of baseline risk factors. At long term rates of death were higher in post CABG group (22.1% vs. 9.9%; P=0.015, RR 2.24 C.I. 95% 1.14-4.40) while death rates in patients with diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (24.0% vs. 23.5%; P=0.969, RR 1.020 C.I. 95% 0.38-2.74) were not different
Conclusion: PCI can be safely offered to both these kinds of patients: as recently demonstrated post CABG outcomes seem to be more favorable in patients with diabetes mellitus.