4.7 Review

External Stenting for Saphenous Vein Grafts in Coronary Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12237395

关键词

coronary artery disease; CABG; saphenous vein graft; VEST; external stent; graft occlusion; intimal hyperplasia; repeat revascularization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Venous External SupporT (VEST) device significantly reduces intimal hyperplasia (IH) in saphenous vein grafts (SVGs), but does not decrease the need for repeat revascularization or reduce graft occlusion events.
The external stenting of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been proven to reduce intimal hyperplasia (IH) in animal models, paving the way for human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be conducted. Herein, we performed a study-level meta-analysis to assess the impact of the Venous External SupporT (VEST) device, an external stent, on the outcomes of SVGs. A systematic search was conducted to identify all RCTs comparing VEST-stented to non-stented SVGs in patients undergoing CABG. The primary outcome was graft occlusion. The main secondary outcomes were repeat revascularization, SVG IH area, and intimal-medial thickness. Two RCTs totaling 407 patients were included. At a mean follow-up of 1.5 years, there was no difference in graft occlusion between groups (incidence rate ratio: 1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80-1.53). The rate of repeat revascularization was also similar (odds ratio: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.27-1.64). The IH area (standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.45; 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.10) and intimal-medial thickness (SMD: -0.50; 95% CI: -0.90 to -0.10) were significantly reduced in the VEST group. Our findings show that significant reductions in the IH area and the intimal-medial thickness in VEST-stented SVGs do not currently translate into a lesser need for repeat revascularization or less graft occlusion events compared to non-stented SVGs at 1.5 years after CABG.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据