In patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery, it is unknown whether better results may be obtained with percutaneous interventions of grafts versus native arteries. The clinical outcomes in 84 patients undergoing percutaneous interventions of either grafts (n = 31) or native arteries (n = 53) were compared. Procedural success rate was 95.3% (96.8% in the graft group vs 94.4% in the native group, P = .3). Mean follow-up was 19 +/- 7 months. The incidence of major adverse events was 14.2% (12.9% vs 15.1% in the graft and native groups, respectively; P = .8), mortality rate was 3.5% (6.4% vs 1.8% in the graft and native groups, respectively; P = .3), and target-lesion revascularization was performed in 4.7% (6.4% vs 3.7% in the graft and native groups, respectively, P = .6). In conclusion, both graft or native percutaneous interventions were similar for immediate and midterm clinical outcomes. The relatively low risk need for target-lesion revascularization obtained with both strategies is encouraging.