Outcomes of Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention With and Without Embolic Protection Device A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis

Background-Current guidelines give a class I recommendation to use of embolic protection devices (EPD) for saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention; however, studies have shown conflicting results. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization in SVG intervention with and without EPD. Methods and Results-Literature was searched through October 2016. Eight studies (n=52 893) comparing SVG intervention performed with EPD (n=11 506) and without EPD (n=41 387) were included. There was no significant difference in allcause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; confidence interval [CI], 0.55-1.12; P=0.19), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 0.73, CI, 0.51-1.05; P=0.09), target vessel revascularization (OR, 1.0; CI, 0.95-1.05; P=0.94), periprocedural MI (OR, 1.12; CI, 0.65-1.90, P=0.69), and late MI (OR, 0.80; CI, 0.52-1.23; P=0.30) between the 2 groups. Sensitivity analysis excluding CathPCI Registry study showed no difference in periprocedural MI, late MI, and target vessel revascularization; however, it favored EPD use in all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. Further sensitivity analysis including only observational studies revealed no difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, and late MI. Additional analysis after excluding CathPCI Registry study revealed no difference in outcomes. Conclusions-This study including 52 893 patients suggests no apparent benefit in routine use of EPD during SVG intervention in the contemporary real-world practice. Further randomized clinical trials are needed in current era to evaluate long-term outcomes in routine use of EPD, and meanwhile, current guideline recommendations on EPD use should be revisited.