Qing Qin1, Shufu Chang2, Rende Xu3, Mingqiang Fu4, Lu Chen5, Lei Ge6, Juying Qian7, Jianying Ma8, Junbo Ge9. 1. Department of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, NO 180, Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Electronic address: qin.qing@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 2. Department of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, NO 180, Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Electronic address: chang.shufu@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 3. Department of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, NO 180, Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Electronic address: xu.rende@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 4. Department of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, NO 180, Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Electronic address: fu.mingqiang@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 5. Department of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, NO 180, Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Electronic address: chen.lu1@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 6. Department of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, NO 180, Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Electronic address: ge.lei@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 7. Department of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, NO 180, Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Electronic address: qian.juying@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 8. Department of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, NO 180, Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Electronic address: ma.jianying@zs-hospital.sh.cn. 9. Department of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, NO 180, Fenglin Road, Shanghai 200032, China. Electronic address: ge.junbo@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary perforation is a serious complication in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In this article, we reported the short and long-term outcomes of patients with coronary perforation managed by coil embolization in our center. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 66 patients who had coronary perforation treated by coil embolization during PCI performed in our center from Oct 2012 to June 2018. RESULTS: Of sixty-six cases of coronary perforation, twenty-six cases were distal coronary perforation, while 40 cases were collateral perforation. The average coil number used in distal coronary and collateral perforation lesion is 1.8 ± 0.9 and 1.8 ± 1.0, respectively. The maximum number of coils implanted in each patient is 4 in both groups. Two emergency cardiac surgery to seal the perforation was performed after coil embolization in distal coronary perforation and pericardiocentesis. In collateral perforation, one case of CABG was performed due to myocardial ischemia caused by CTO lesion. During a follow-up of 707 ± 476 days, one patient in collateral perforation group had CABG one month later, while no death or myocardial infarction (MI) was detected. Fifty-four (81.2%) cases of perforations occurred while treating chronic total occlusion, and 74.0% of these perforations were located in collateral vessels, mostly epicardial vessels. Thirty-nine CTO cases (72.2%) were revascularized successfully with the aid of coil embolization. CONCLUSION: Coil embolization is feasible and effective in treating distal coronary perforation and collateral perforation during PCI procedure. In CTO lesions, coil embolization facilitates the success of revascularization by PCI.
BACKGROUND: Coronary perforation is a serious complication in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In this article, we reported the short and long-term outcomes of patients with coronary perforation managed by coil embolization in our center. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 66 patients who had coronary perforation treated by coil embolization during PCI performed in our center from Oct 2012 to June 2018. RESULTS: Of sixty-six cases of coronary perforation, twenty-six cases were distal coronary perforation, while 40 cases were collateral perforation. The average coil number used in distal coronary and collateral perforation lesion is 1.8 ± 0.9 and 1.8 ± 1.0, respectively. The maximum number of coils implanted in each patient is 4 in both groups. Two emergency cardiac surgery to seal the perforation was performed after coil embolization in distal coronary perforation and pericardiocentesis. In collateral perforation, one case of CABG was performed due to myocardial ischemia caused by CTO lesion. During a follow-up of 707 ± 476 days, one patient in collateral perforation group had CABG one month later, while no death or myocardial infarction (MI) was detected. Fifty-four (81.2%) cases of perforations occurred while treating chronic total occlusion, and 74.0% of these perforations were located in collateral vessels, mostly epicardial vessels. Thirty-nine CTO cases (72.2%) were revascularized successfully with the aid of coil embolization. CONCLUSION: Coil embolization is feasible and effective in treating distal coronary perforation and collateral perforation during PCI procedure. In CTO lesions, coil embolization facilitates the success of revascularization by PCI.