A revised algorithm for coronary perforation
L. Satler
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.10315
IF: 2.3
2002-10-01
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
Abstract:In this issue, Owens and Motwani describe a complication of an RCA angioplasty for a total occlusion in which the patient develops a perforation during stent implantation, which is complicated by delayed distal flow. The authors note extravasation of contrast into the perivascular tissue, which they considered a contained perforation at the distal end of the stent; because the patient remained hemodynamically stable and did not have a pericardial effusion, they thought that a conservative approach would be warranted despite the presence of delayed distal flow and the concern that a perivascular hematoma had developed, limiting the distal vessel inflow. Although the authors describe an excellent outcome after prolonged hospital observation in this patient without further intervention, this approach should clearly not be condoned, particularly with the availability of the covered stent technology, and demonstrates that despite poor clinical judgment, a reasonable outcome is still possible. Coronary perforation remains one of the most serious complications in the catheterization laboratory, with multiple studies demonstrating very poor outcomes, particularly in relationship to myocardial infarction and death. In our own series [1], we noted a 10% incidence of death, 39% incidence of MI, and a 39% need for emergency coronary bypass surgery in the era predating covered stents. Coronary perforation remains underreported and is likely increasing in occurrence as interventionalists engage more complex angiographic subsets. With the recent limited U.S. market release of the Jomed covered stent, the delay to deployment with a covered stent in a perforation is akin to an older concept when coronary bare-metal stents were first released; initially in the presence of a suboptimal result with balloon angioplasty, prolonged balloon inflations were used to tack up the dissections; stenting was considered the last resort. For PCI-related perforations, most current algorithms still support initial conservative therapy with the use of prolonged balloon inflations and perfusion balloons to restore normal vessel patency. However, the covered stent has performance characteristics specific for perforations and should be rapidly considered the first treatment of choice. The only relative contraindications to a deployment of a covered stent would be the perceived inability to reach the target lesion or the consideration that a major side branch may be closed in the process. In either event, the interventionalist is obligated to ask for immediate help from his colleagues, both other interventionalists and surgeons, in order to develop a coordinated approach to balance the combination of hemodynamic instability and concomitant ongoing ischemia. Anticoagulation management during this time remains an unresolved issue; attempts to reverse anticoagulation appear logical to control perforation bleeding if present but are juxtaposed to the deployment of the implantation of a covered stent; hence, management needs to be individualized [2,3] depending on the presence or absence of persistent pericardial bleeding and tamponade. To consider maintaining anticoagulation, particularly with IIb/IIIa glycoprotein inhibitors in this setting, is absurd despite the fact that there may be case reports of this management strategy, particularly since these patients may still require emergency heart surgery. Despite the successful implantation of the covered stent with closure of the perforation, indications for emergency bypass may still be present due to continued ongoing ischemia in the treatment vessel, its side branch, or other severely disease vessels. In addition, the high-pressure jet that is associated with the initial coronary perforation can separate myocardial layers, resulting in a subepicardial hematoma [4] with dissection and separation of tissue planes creating multiple dysfunctional contraction segments requiring surgical intervention for decompression. In summary, coronary perforation will always be regarded as a major catheterization laboratory adverse event; however, it will remain a catastrophe if the interventionalist fails to use rapidly the full coordinated resources of the catheterization laboratory environment (covered stents and professional colleague resources) to assist in the consequences of the complication (Fig. 1).