The prevalence, management and outcomes of coronary artery perforations during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with or without acute coronary syndromes.
Journal
Coronary artery disease
ISSN: 1473-5830
Titre abrégé: Coron Artery Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9011445
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2021
01 11 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
21
1
2021
medline:
3
2
2022
entrez:
20
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Coronary artery perforation (CAP) is an uncommon but serious complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of this study was to compare early and late clinical outcomes of CAP in patients with or without acute coronary syndromes (ACS). A retrospective review was made of the procedural records of 15 878 patients who underwent PCI at two large tertiary centers between January 2012 and December 2018. A total of 51 (0.32 %) CAP cases were identified. Of the 51 CAP cases, 26 (51.0%) patients had ACS and 25 (49%) patients had stable coronary artery disease (CAD). The major cause of perforation was stenting (43%). Cardiac tamponade was more frequent in the ACS group than stable CAD group (34.6 vs. 8%; P = 0.024). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the overall 30-day cardiovascular mortality rate was higher in patients with ACS than stable CAD (23.1 vs. 0%; P = 0.011). At the 3-year follow-up examination, no statistically significant difference was determined between the two groups in respect of all-cause mortality (36.1 vs. 28.4%; P = 0.262). Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated left ventricular ejection fraction (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99; P = 0.033) but not ACS at presentation (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.37-5.20; P = 0.628) as a predictor of mortality at 3 years. Early clinical outcomes following CAP, including cardiac tamponade and 30-day cardiovascular mortality, were significantly worse in patients with ACS compared to stable CAD.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Coronary artery perforation (CAP) is an uncommon but serious complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of this study was to compare early and late clinical outcomes of CAP in patients with or without acute coronary syndromes (ACS).
METHOD
A retrospective review was made of the procedural records of 15 878 patients who underwent PCI at two large tertiary centers between January 2012 and December 2018. A total of 51 (0.32 %) CAP cases were identified.
RESULTS
Of the 51 CAP cases, 26 (51.0%) patients had ACS and 25 (49%) patients had stable coronary artery disease (CAD). The major cause of perforation was stenting (43%). Cardiac tamponade was more frequent in the ACS group than stable CAD group (34.6 vs. 8%; P = 0.024). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the overall 30-day cardiovascular mortality rate was higher in patients with ACS than stable CAD (23.1 vs. 0%; P = 0.011). At the 3-year follow-up examination, no statistically significant difference was determined between the two groups in respect of all-cause mortality (36.1 vs. 28.4%; P = 0.262). Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated left ventricular ejection fraction (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-0.99; P = 0.033) but not ACS at presentation (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.37-5.20; P = 0.628) as a predictor of mortality at 3 years.
CONCLUSIONS
Early clinical outcomes following CAP, including cardiac tamponade and 30-day cardiovascular mortality, were significantly worse in patients with ACS compared to stable CAD.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33471469
doi: 10.1097/MCA.0000000000001014
pii: 00019501-900000000-98717
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
610-617Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Shimony A, Joseph L, Mottillo S, Eisenberg MJ. Coronary artery perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol 2011; 27:843–850.
Lee MS, Shamouelian A, Dahodwala MQ. Coronary artery perforation following percutaneous coronary intervention. J Invasive Cardiol 2016; 28:122–131.
Guttmann OP, Jones DA, Gulati A, Kotecha T, Fayed H, Patel D, et al. Prevalence and outcomes of coronary artery perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Eurointervention 2017; 13:e595–e601.
Ellis SG, Ajluni S, Arnold AZ, Popma JJ, Bittl JA, Eigler NL, et al. Increased coronary perforation in the new device era. Incidence, classification, management, and outcome. Circulation 1994; 90:2725–2730.
Stankovic G, Orlic D, Corvaja N, Airoldi F, Chieffo A, Spanos V, et al. Incidence, predictors, in-hospital, and late outcomes of coronary artery perforations. Am J Cardiol 2004; 93:213–216.
Shimony A, Zahger D, Van Straten M, Shalev A, Gilutz H, Ilia R, Cafri C. Incidence, risk factors, management and outcomes of coronary artery perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2009; 104:1674–1677.
Doll JA, Nikolsky E, Stone GW, Mehran R, Lincoff AM, Caixeta A, et al. Outcomes of patients with coronary artery perforation complicating percutaneous coronary intervention and correlations with the type of adjunctive antithrombotic therapy: pooled analysis from REPLACE-2, ACUITY, and HORIZONS-AMI trials. J Interv Cardiol 2009; 22:453–459.
Muller O, Windecker S, Cuisset T, Fajadet J, Mason M, Zuffi A, et al. Management of two major complications in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory: the no-reflow phenomenon and coronary perforations. Eurointervention 2008; 4:181–183.
Ellis SG, Vandormael MG, Cowley MJ, DiSciascio G, Deligonul U, Topol EJ, Bulle TM. Coronary morphologic and clinical determinants of procedural outcome with angioplasty for multivessel coronary disease. Implications for patient selection. Multivessel angioplasty prognosis study group. Circulation 1990; 82:1193–1202.
Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Chaitman BR, Bax JJ, Morrow DA, White HD; Executive Group on behalf of the Joint European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA)/World Heart Federation (WHF) Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. Fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation 2018; 138:e618–e651.
Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, Mueller C, Valgimigli M, Andreotti F, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: task force for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2016; 37:267–315.
Al-Lamee R, Ielasi A, Latib A, Godino C, Ferraro M, Mussardo M, et al. Incidence, predictors, management, immediate and long-term outcomes following grade III coronary perforation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4:87–95.
Gunning MG, Williams IL, Jewitt DE, Shah AM, Wainwright RJ, Thomas MR. Coronary artery perforation during percutaneous intervention: incidence and outcome. Heart 2002; 88:495–498.
Fasseas P, Orford JL, Panetta CJ, Bell MR, Denktas AE, Lennon RJ, et al. Incidence, correlates, management, and clinical outcome of coronary perforation: analysis of 16,298 procedures. Am Heart J 2004; 147:140–145.
Ajluni SC, Glazier S, Blankenship L, O’Neill WW, Safian RD. Perforations after percutaneous coronary interventions: clinical, angiographic, and therapeutic observations. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 1994; 32:206–212.
Stathopoulos I, Kossidas K, Panagopoulos G, Garratt K. Cardiac tamponade complicating coronary perforation during angioplasty: short-term outcomes and long-term survival. J Invasive Cardiol 2013; 25:486–491.
Shaukat A, Tajti P, Sandoval Y, Stanberry L, Garberich R, Nicholas Burke M, et al. Incidence, predictors, management and outcomes of coronary perforations. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 93:48–56.
Ndrepepa G, Kastrati A. Bleeding complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: current status and perspective. Coron Artery Dis 2014; 25:247–257.
Meguro K, Ohira H, Nishikido T, Fujita M, Chinen T, Kikuchi T, et al. Outcome of prolonged balloon inflation for the management of coronary perforation. J Cardiol 2013; 61:206–209.
Lansky AJ, Yang YM, Khan Y, Costa RA, Pietras C, Tsuchiya Y, et al. Treatment of coronary artery perforations complicating percutaneous coronary intervention with a polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent graft. Am J Cardiol 2006; 98:370–374.
Kinnaird T, Kwok CS, Kontopantelis E, Ossei-Gerning N, Ludman P, deBelder M, et al. Incidence, determinants, and outcomes of coronary perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention in the United Kingdom between 2006 and 2013: an analysis of 527 121 cases from the British cardiovascular intervention society database. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9:e003449.
Lemmert ME, van Bommel RJ, Diletti R, Wilschut JM, de Jaegere PP, Zijlstra F, et al. Clinical characteristics and management of coronary artery perforations: a single-center 11-year experience and practical overview. J Am Heart Assoc 2017; 6:e007049.
Javaid A, Buch AN, Satler LF, Kent KM, Suddath WO, Lindsay J Jr, et al. Management and outcomes of coronary artery perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2006; 98:911–914.
Lee WC, Hsueh SK, Fang CY, Wu CJ, Hang CL, Fang HY. Clinical outcomes following covered stent for the treatment of coronary artery perforation. J Interv Cardiol 2016; 29:569–575.
McManus DD, Aslam F, Goyal P, Goldberg RJ, Huang W, Gore JM. Incidence, prognosis, and factors associated with cardiac arrest in patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes (the global registry of acute coronary events registry). Coron Artery Dis 2012; 23:105–112.