OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether small reference diameter of the culprit coronary artery influences the outcome of an attempted percutaneous revascularization procedure in the current era of interventional cardiology. BACKGROUND: Although the interventional strategy is largely determined by the size of the culprit coronary artery, earlier quantitative studies have not shown a worse acute outcome for small reference vessel diameter (< or =2.5 mm). METHODS: A total of 2,306 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization was divided in groups with reference diameters < or =2.5 mm (n = 813) or >2.5 mm (n = 1,493). Success and in-hospital major adverse cardiac event (death, Q-wave myocardial infarction and emergency coronary artery bypass graft) rates between both groups were compared. RESULTS: Patients with lesions in small vessels were older and presented more frequently with female gender, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, peripheral vascular, multivessel coronary disease and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) lesion type C (p < or = 0.01, each). Further, utilization of interventional devices differed markedly. In contrast to stents (18.5% vs. 41.9%) and directional atherectomy (3.7% vs. 13.5%), conventional balloon angioplasty (73% vs. 50%) and rotational atherectomy (16.1% vs. 8.3%) were used more often in smaller vessels (p < or = 0.0001, each). Success rate was lower in the small vessel group (92% vs. 95%; p = 0.006). Major adverse cardiac events occurred more frequently in small than large vessels (univariate 3.4% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.03; multivariate odds ratio 2.1, p = 0.02), particularly when proximal coronary segments were compared. CONCLUSIONS: Lesions in vessels with small reference diameter represent a distinct group with respect to clinical and morphologic characteristics as well as device utilization. These lesions have lower chances of successful percutaneous intervention and carry relatively higher risks, specifically when located in proximal coronary segments.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether small reference diameter of the culprit coronary artery influences the outcome of an attempted percutaneous revascularization procedure in the current era of interventional cardiology. BACKGROUND: Although the interventional strategy is largely determined by the size of the culprit coronary artery, earlier quantitative studies have not shown a worse acute outcome for small reference vessel diameter (< or =2.5 mm). METHODS: A total of 2,306 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization was divided in groups with reference diameters < or =2.5 mm (n = 813) or >2.5 mm (n = 1,493). Success and in-hospital major adverse cardiac event (death, Q-wave myocardial infarction and emergency coronary artery bypass graft) rates between both groups were compared. RESULTS:Patients with lesions in small vessels were older and presented more frequently with female gender, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, peripheral vascular, multivessel coronary disease and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) lesion type C (p < or = 0.01, each). Further, utilization of interventional devices differed markedly. In contrast to stents (18.5% vs. 41.9%) and directional atherectomy (3.7% vs. 13.5%), conventional balloon angioplasty (73% vs. 50%) and rotational atherectomy (16.1% vs. 8.3%) were used more often in smaller vessels (p < or = 0.0001, each). Success rate was lower in the small vessel group (92% vs. 95%; p = 0.006). Major adverse cardiac events occurred more frequently in small than large vessels (univariate 3.4% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.03; multivariate odds ratio 2.1, p = 0.02), particularly when proximal coronary segments were compared. CONCLUSIONS: Lesions in vessels with small reference diameter represent a distinct group with respect to clinical and morphologic characteristics as well as device utilization. These lesions have lower chances of successful percutaneous intervention and carry relatively higher risks, specifically when located in proximal coronary segments.
Authors: Pedro A Lemos; Expedito E Ribeiro; Marco A Perin; Luiz J Kajita; Marco A de Magalhães; João L A A Falcão; Antonio Esteves Filho; Marcus N da Gama; Pedro E Horta; Gilberto G Marchiori; Andre G Spadaro; Eulógio E Martinez Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2006-06-30 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Amit K Hiteshi; Dong Li; Yanlin Gao; Andy Chen; Ferdinand Flores; Song Shou Mao; Matthew J Budoff Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Shailja V Parikh; Michael Luna; Faith Selzer; Oscar C Marroquin; Suresh R Mulukutla; J Dawn Abbott; Elizabeth M Holper Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rosaly A Buiten; Eline H Ploumen; Paolo Zocca; Carine J M Doggen; Liefke C van der Heijden; Marlies M Kok; Peter W Danse; Carl E Schotborgh; Martijn Scholte; Frits H A F de Man; Gerard C M Linssen; Clemens von Birgelen Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Emily M Bucholz; Saif S Rathore; Kimberly J Reid; Philip G Jones; Paul S Chan; Michael W Rich; John A Spertus; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Am J Med Date: 2012-04-05 Impact factor: 4.965