Incidence, predictors, management and outcomes of coronary perforations.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the contemporary incidence, types, predictors, angiographic characteristics, management and outcomes of coronary perforation. BACKGROUND: Coronary perforation is a rare, but important, complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is lack of data on perforations stratified as large and distal vessel perforations. METHODS: Retrospective, observational cohort study of all patients who underwent PCI at a high volume, tertiary hospital between the years 2009 and 2016. Angiograms of all coronary perforation cases were reviewed to determine the mechanism, type, and management of perforation. Risk-adjusted periprocedural complication rates were compared between patients with and without coronary perforation. One-year mortality outcomes of patients with large vessel vs. distal vessel perforation were also examined. RESULTS: Coronary perforation occurred in 68 of 13,339 PCIs (0.51%) performed during the study period: 51 (75%) were large vessel perforations and 17 (25%) distal vessel perforations. Most (67%) large vessel perforations were due to balloon/stent inflation, whereas most (94%) distal vessel perforations were due to guidewire exit. Patients with coronary perforations had significantly higher risk for periprocedural complications (adjusted odds ratio 7.57; 95% CI: 4.22-13.50; P < 0.001). Only one patient with large vessel perforation required emergency cardiac surgery, yet in-hospital mortality was high with both large vessel (7.8%) and distal vessel (11.8%) perforations. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary perforation is an infrequent, but potentially severe PCI complication. Most coronary perforations are large vessel perforations. Although coronary perforations rarely lead to emergency cardiac surgery, both distal vessel and large vessel perforations are associated with high in-hospital mortality, highlighting the importance of prevention.

Randomized Comparison of a CrossBoss First Versus Standard Wire Escalation Strategy for Crossing Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions: The CrossBoss First Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The authors performed a multicenter, randomized-controlled, clinical trial comparing upfront use of the CrossBoss catheter versus antegrade wire escalation for antegrade crossing of coronary chronic total occlusions. BACKGROUND: There is equipoise about the optimal initial strategy for crossing coronary chronic total occlusions. METHODS: The primary endpoints were the time required to cross the chronic total occlusion or abort the procedure and the frequency of procedural major adverse cardiovascular events. The secondary endpoints were technical and procedural success, total procedure time, fluoroscopy time required to cross and total fluoroscopy time, total air kerma radiation dose, total contrast volume, and equipment use. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2017, 246 patients were randomized to the CrossBoss catheter (n = 122) or wire escalation (n = 124) at 11 U.S. centers. The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of the study groups were similar. Technical and procedural success were 87.8% and 84.1%, respectively, and were similar in the 2 groups. Crossing time was similar: 56 min (interquartile range: 33 to 93 min) in the CrossBoss group and 66 min (interquartile range: 36 to 105 min) in the wire escalation group (p = 0.323), as was as the incidence of procedural major adverse cardiovascular events (3.28% vs. 4.03%; p = 1.000). There were no significant differences in the secondary study endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with wire escalation, upfront use of the CrossBoss catheter for antegrade crossing of coronary chronic total occlusions was associated with similar crossing time, similar success and complication rates, and similar equipment use and cost.