CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Impact of Coronary Lesion Complexity in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: One-Year Outcomes From the Large, Multicentre e-Ultimaster Registry Disrupting Fellow Education Through Group Texting: WhatsApp in Fellow Education? Generalizing Intensive Blood Pressure Treatment to Adults With Diabetes Mellitus Invasive Coronary Physiology After Stent Implantation: Another Step Toward Precision Medicine Causes of Mortality After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program Major infections after bypass surgery and stenting for multivessel coronary disease in the randomised SYNTAX trial Update on Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Light of Recent Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association Randomized Comparison Between Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Scaffold and Metallic Stent: Multimodality Imaging Through 3 Years

Clinical TrialOctober 2017; Vol 120, Issue 8, P1285–1292

JOURNAL:Am J Cardiol. Article Link

Incidence, Treatment, and Outcomes of Coronary Perforation During Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Danek BA, Karatasakis A, Brilakis ES et al. Keywords: Coronary Perforation; Chronic Total Occlusion; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

ABSTRACT

Coronary perforation is a potential complication of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We analyzed 2,097 CTO PCIs performed in 2,049 patients from 2012 to 2017. Patient age was 65 ± 10 years, 85% were men, and 36% had prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Technical and procedural success were 88% and 87%, respectively. A major periprocedural adverse cardiovascular event occurred in 2.6%. Coronary perforation occurred in 85 patients (4.1%); The frequency of Ellis class 1, 2, and 3 perforations was 21%, 26%, and 52%, respectively. Perforation occurred more frequently in older patients and those with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery (61% vs 35%, p < 0.001). Cases with perforation were angiographically more complex (Multicenter CTO Registry in Japan score 3.0 ± 1.2 vs 2.5 ± 1.3, p < 0.001). Twelve patients (14%) with perforation experienced tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis. Patient age, previous PCI, right coronary artery target CTO, blunt or no stump, use of antegrade dissection re-entry, and the retrograde approach were associated with perforation. Adjusted odds ratio for periprocedural major periprocedural adverse cardiovascular events among patients with perforation was 15.04 (95% confidence interval 7.35 to 30.18). In conclusion, perforation occurs relatively infrequently in contemporary CTO PCI performed by experienced operators and is associated with baseline patient characteristics and angiographic complexity necessitating use of advanced crossing techniques. In most cases, perforations do not result in tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis, but they are associated with reduced technical and procedural success, higher periprocedural major adverse events, and reduced procedural efficiency.