CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Other Relevant Articles

Abstract

Recommended Article

Comparison of Stenting Versus Bypass Surgery According to the Completeness of Revascularization in Severe Coronary Artery Disease: Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of the SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, and BEST Trials Contemporary Antiplatelet Pharmacotherapy in the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes Uptake of Drug-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds in Clinical Practice : An NCDR Registry to Practice Project 2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality in Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Percutaneous Interventions With Coronary Bypass Surgery: A Meta-analysis Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Readmissions Where Are the Solutions? Derivation and Validation of a Chronic Total Coronary Occlusion Intervention Procedural Success Score From the 20,000-Patient EuroCTO Registry:The EuroCTO (CASTLE) Score Poor R-wave progression as a predictor of sudden cardiac death in general population and subjects with coronary artery disease

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.