4.3 Article

Dual Catheter Technique for the Treatment of Severe Coronary Artery Perforations

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ccd.22331

关键词

PCI - percutaneous coronary intervention; PERF - peroration; COMP - complications adult cath/intervention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate the outcome of patients with coronary perforations who were treated with the dual catheter approach. Background: Coronary artery perforation is a grave complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with high mortality and morbidity. Treating a coronary artery perforation with two catheters through dual access enables a rapid delivery of covered stent or coils to the vessel, without losing control of the perforation site. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who had a severe coronary perforation during a PCI in our center, and compared outcomes of patients treated with the dual versus the traditional single guiding catheter approach. Results: Between April 2004 and October 2008, 13,466 PCI's were performed in Columbia University - New York Presbyterian Medical Center. There were 33 documented cases of coronary perforations during that period of time (0.245%), among these, 26 were angiographically severe (Ellis type 2 or 3 perforations). Eleven patients were treated acutely with a dual catheter technique whereas the other fifteen patients were treated using a single guiding catheter. In the dual catheter group one patient expired after emergent CABG (9.1%), and four patients underwent emergent paricardiocentesis (36.4%). In patients treated with single catheter, there were three deaths (20%), two surgical explorations (13.3%), eight emergent pericardiocenthesis (53.3%), and one event of severe anoxic brain damage (6.7%). Conclusion: The dual catheter technique is a relatively safe and reproducible approach to treat a PCI induced severe coronary artery perforation, and may improve outcome compared to historical series. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据