Table 1.
Medical intervention for SVG patency
| Author | Comparison | Design | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anticoagulant vs antiplatelet | |||
| Pantely et al. (1979) [85] | Aspirin/dipyridamole vs. oral anticoagulant | Randomised. SVG patency assessed by ICA | No difference in graft patency |
| McEnany et al. (1982) [86] | Aspirin vs. oral anticoagulant vs. placebo | Randomised. SVG patency assessed by ICA | No difference in graft patency |
| van der Meer et al. (1993) [122] | Aspirin vs. aspirin/dipyridamole vs. oral anticoagulant | Randomised. SVG patency assessed by ICA | No difference in graft patency |
| Anticoagulant vs placebo | |||
| Gohlke et al. (1981) [123] | Phenoprocoumon vs. placebo | Randomised. SVG patency assessed by ICA | Higher patency rates with oral anticoagulant |
| Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Trial Investigators. (1997) [124] | Wafarin vs. placebo | 2 × 2 multifactorial. Randomised. SVG patency assessed by ICA | Warfarin did not reduce the progression of atherosclerosis in SVGs |
| Antiplatelet vs placebo | |||
| Chesebro et al. (1984) [32] | Aspirin/dipyridamole vs. placebo | Randomised. SVG patency assessed by ICA | Higher patency rates with DAPT |
| Goldman et al. (1989) [88] | Aspirin vs. aspirin/dipyridamole vs sulfinpyrazone vs placebo | Randomised. SVG patency assessed by ICA | Higher patency rates with aspirin |
| Aspirin vs DAPT with clopidogrel | |||
| Gao et al. (2009) [111] | Clopidogrel vs. aspirin/clopidogrel | Non randomised. SVG patency assessed by CTA | No difference in graft patency |
| Kulik et al. (2010) [114] | Aspirin vs. aspirin/clopidogrel | Randomised. SVG patency assessed by ICA | No differences |
| Gao et al. (2010) [113] | Aspirin vs. aspirin/clopidogrel | Randomised. SVG patency assessed by CTA | Higher patency rates with DAPT |
| Sun et al. (2010) [112] | Aspirin vs. aspirin/clopidogrel | Randomised. SVG patency assessed by CTA | Higher patency rates with DAPT |
| Mannacio et al. (2012) [115] | Aspirin vs. aspirin/clopidogrel in off pump CABG | Randomised. SVG patency assessed by CTA | Higher patency rates with DAPT |
| Aspirin vs. DAPT with newer antiplateletsa | |||
| Held et al. (2011) [127] | Aspirin and clopidogrel vs. aspirin and ticagrelor | CABG subgroup of PLATO trial to assess bleeding and clinical outcomes | Reduction in total and CV mortality without excess risk of bleeding with ticagrelor |
| Smith et al. (2012) [126] | Aspirin and clopidogrel vs. aspirin and prasugrel | CABG subgroup of TRITON TIMI-38 trial to assess bleeding and clinical outcomes | Higher bleeding but lower rate of death with prasugrel |
| Hansson et al. (2016) [129] | Aspirin and clopidogrel vs. aspirin and ticagrelor | Retrospective observational to assess bleeding | Lower bleeding complications with ticagrelor |
| Lipid lowering therapy | |||
| Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Trial Investigators. (1997) [124] | Lovastatin 2.5–5 mg vs. lovastatin 40–80 mg | 2 × 2 multifactorial RCT to assess SVG patency with angio | Higher patency rates with higher statins |
| Makuuchi et al. (2005) [131] | Pravastatin vs. placebo | Randomised. SVG patency assessed by ICA | Higher patency rates with higher statins |
| Kulik et al. (2011) [132] | LDL levels <100 mg/dL compared to levels >100 mg/dL | Non-randomised post hoc analysis of statin use in CASCADE trial | Higher patency rates with LDL <100 mg/dL |
aClinical studies only—none on SVG patency