A comprehensive meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing drug‐eluting stents with bare‐metal stents in saphenous vein graft interventions

Background Several large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have proven the superiority of drug‐eluting stents (DESs) over bare‐metal stents (BMSs) for native coronary stenosis. However, RCTs comparing DESs with BMSs for SVG lesions have predominantly been small in size and have yielded conflicting results. Therefore, we conducted an updated comprehensive meta‐analysis of RCTs comparing DESs versus BMSs for SVG interventions using the largest sample size to date. Methods Scientific databases and websites were searched to find RCTs. Data from six RCTs involving 1,582 patients were included. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random‐effects models. The primary outcome of this meta‐analysis was target vessel revascularization (TVR). The secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis, all‐cause mortality, and cardiac mortality. Results Data from six RCTs involving 1,582 patients were included. Saphenous vein graft interventions with DESs reduced TVR (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30–0.88; P = 0.017) and MACE rate (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42–0.87; P = 0.007) compared to BMSs. No difference between the stents were found in rates of MI (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.43–1.10; P = 0.123), stent thrombosis (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.27–1.41; P = 0.255), all‐cause mortality (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.74–1.71; P = 0.554), or cardiac mortality. Conclusion For SVG intervention, the MACE rate was lower for DESs compared to BMSs, driven primarily by decreased non‐MI‐related TVR. Rates of MI, all‐cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and stent thrombosis were not different between the stents.