Advertisement

Complications of Percutaneous Coronary Artery Intervention

  • Kirk N. Garratt
  • David R. HolmesJr.
Chapter

Abstract

Interventional cardiology encompasses an increasingly large number of patient and lesion subsets. Despite this factor, major complications of percutaneous coronary angioplasty (PCA) have gradually decreased. Data from large institutions published in 1988 [1] reveal that the absolute risk of serious adverse events was already low (Fig. 13–1), so producing risk reductions was not an easy task. This reduction has been the result largely of a dramatic fall in the need for emergency or urgent coronary bypass graft surgery (from between 3% and 5% to about 0.5%) to treat acute or threatened closure after conventional balloon angioplasty [2,3]. Because acute or threatened closure was the most common major complication of intervention, substantial efforts were made to study the risk factors associated with it (Fig. 13–2). Some of these risk factors were demographic, whereas others were procedural [4,5]. With the widespread use of stent implantation (70% to 90% of patients undergoing PCA in North America and Europe), many of these factors may no longer be relevant.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wyman RM, Sanan RD, Portway, V, et al.: Current complications of diagnostic and therapeutic cardiac catheterization. J Am Coll Cardiol 1988, 12:1400–1406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hasdai D, Berger PB, Bell MR, et al.: The changing face of coronary interventional practice: the Mayo Clinic experience. Arch Intern Med 1997, 157:677–682.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shubrooks SJ Jr, Nesto RW, Leeman D, et al.: Urgent coronary bypass surgery for failed percutaneous coronary intervention in the stent era: is backup still necessary? Am Heart J 2001, 142:190–196.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krone RJ, Laskey WK, Johnson C, et al.: A simplified lesion classification for predicting success and complications of coronary angioplasty. Registry Committee of the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Intervention. Am J Cardiol 2000, 85:1179–1184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scanion PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, et al.: ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography: executive summary and recommendations. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography) developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 1999, 99:2345–2357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hannan EL, Racz M, Ryan TJ, et al.: Coronary angioplasty volume-outcome relationships for hospitals and cardiologists. JAMA 1997, 277:892–898.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holmes DR Jr, Berger PB, Garratt KN, et al.: Application of the New York State PTCA mortality model in patients undergoing stent implantation. Circulation 2000, 102:517–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garratt KN, Bacharach M: Stent retrieval: devices and technique. In Peripheral Vascular Stenting for Cardiologists. Edited by Heuser RR. London: Martin Dunitz; 1999:27.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berger PB, Bell MR, Rihal CS, et al.: Clopidogrel versus ticlopidine after intra-coronary stent placement. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999, 34:1891–1894.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schuhlen H, Hadamitzky M, Walter H, et al.: Major benefit from antiplatelet therapy for patients at high risk for adverse cardiac events after coronary Palmaz-Schatz stent placement: analysis of a prospective risk stratification protocol in the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen (ISAR) trial. Circulation 1997, 95:2015–2021.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cutlip DE: Stent thrombosis: historical perspectives and current trends. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2000, 10:89–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ellis SG, Ajluni S, Arnold AZ, et al.: Increased coronary perforation in the new device era. Incidence, classification, management, and outcome. Circulation 1994, 90:2725–2730.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Waksman R, Ajani AE, White RL, et al.: Prolonged antiplatelet therapy to prevent late thrombosis after intracoronary gamma-radiation in patients with in-stent restenosis: Washington Radiation for In-Stent Restenosis Trial plus 6 months of Clopidogrel (WRIST PLUS). Circulation 2001, 103:2332–2335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Al Suwaidi J, Yeh W, Cohen HA, et al.: Immediate and one-year outcome in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions in the modern era (NHLBI dynamic registry). Am J Cardiol 2001, 87:1139–1144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alfonso F, Hernandez C, Perez-Vizcayno MJ, et al.: Fate of stent-related side branches after coronary intervention in patients with in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000, 36:1549–1556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al Suwaidi J, Berger PB, Rihal CS, et al.: Immediate and long-term outcome of intracoronary stent implantation for true bifurcation lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000, 35:929–936.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Piana RN, Moscucci M, Cohen DJ, et al.: Palmaz-Schatz stenting for treatment of focal vein graft stenosis: immediate results and long-term outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994, 23:1296–1304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abbo KM, Dooris M, Glazier S, et al.: Features and outcome of no-reflow after percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 1995, 75:778–782.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hillegass WB, Dean NA, Liao L, et al.: Treatment of no-reflow and impaired flow with the nitric oxide donor nitroprusside following percutaneous coronary interventions: initial human clinical experience. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001, 37:1335–1343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holmes DR Jr, Mehta S, George CJ, et al.: Excimer laser coronary angioplasty: the New Approaches to Coronary Intervention (NACI) experience. Am J Cardiol 1997, 80:99K–105K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Garratt KN, Kaufmann UP, Edwards WD, et al.: Safety of percutaneous coronary atherectomy with deep arterial resection. Am J Cardiol 1989, 64:538–540.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dippel EJ, Kereiakes DJ, Tramuta DA, et al.: Coronary perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of abciximab platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade: an algorithm for percutaneous management. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2001, 52:279–286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McClure MW, Berkowitz SD, Sparapani R, et al.: Clinical significance of thrombocytopenia during a non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. The platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in unstable angina: receptor suppression using integrilin therapy (PURSUIT) trial experience. Circulation 1999, 99:2892–900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kereiakes DJ, Berkowitz SD, Lincoff AM, et al.: Clinical correlates and course of thrombocytopenia during percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of abciximab platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade. Am Heart J 2000, 140:74–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baglin TP: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia thrombosis (HIT/T) syndrome: diagnosis and treatment. J Clin Pathol 2001, 54:272–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Williams DO, Holubkov R, Yeh W, et al.: Percutaneous coronary intervention in the current era compared with 1985–1986: the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Registries. Circulation 2000, 102:2945–2951.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Battista Danzi G, Capuano C, Sesana M, et al.: A randomised comparison of the use of 4 and 6 French diagnostic catheters: the limits of downsizing. Int J Cardiol 2001, 79:113–1177; discussion 117–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Choussat R, Black A, Bossi I, et al.: Vascular complications and clinical outcome after coronary angioplasty with platelet IIb/IIIa receptor blockade. Comparison of transradial vs transfemoral arterial access. Eur Heart J 2000, 21:662–667.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Louvard Y, Lefevre T, Allain A, Morice M: Coronary angiography through the radial or the femoral approach: The CARAFE study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2001, 52:181–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frazee BW, Flaherty JP: Septic endarteritis of the femoral artery following angioplasty. Rev Infect Dis 1991, 13:620–623.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tolerico PH, McKendall GR: Femoral endarteritis as a complication of percutaneous coronary intervention. J Invasive Cardiol 2000, 12:155–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scanlon PJ, Faxon DP, Audet AM, et al.: ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary angiography: executive summary and recommendations. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Coronary Angiography) developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions. Circulation 1999, 99:2345–2357.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ellis SG, Vandormael MG, Cowley MJ, and the POSCH Group: Coronary morphologic and clinical determinates of procedural outcome with angioplasty for multivessel coronary disease: implications for patient selection. Circulation 1990, 82:1193–1202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bergelson BA, Jacobs AK, Cupples LA, et al.: Prediction of risk for hemodynamic compromise during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 1992, 70:1540–1545.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brueren BR, Mast EG, Suttorp MJ, et al.: How good are experienced interventional cardiologists in predicting the risk and difficulty of a coronary angioplasty procedure? A prospective study to optimize surgical standby. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 1999, 46:257–262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ellis SG, Guetta V, Miller D, et al.: Relation between lesion characteristics and risk with percutaneous intervention in the stent and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa era: an analysis of results from 10,907 lesions and proposal for new classification scheme. Circulation 1999, 100:1971–1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirk N. Garratt
  • David R. HolmesJr.

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations