Why the study?
Do newer coronary interventions reduce the incidence of abrupt closure compared to standard balloon angioplasty in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
Do newer coronary interventions reduce the incidence of abrupt closure compared to standard balloon angioplasty in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention?
The introduction of newer coronary interventional devices (stents, atherectomy, laser) is associated with a lower incidence of abrupt closure and improved percutaneous rescue rates compared to standard balloon angioplasty.
May not yet alter PCI practice; leaves open need for randomized confirmation of benefit.
Abrupt closure of the dilated segment occurs in approximately 4 to 7% of cases following conventional percutaneous coronary angioplasty. Additional balloon angioplasty reverses roughly 40% of these closures, to yield an overall 1.6 to 3.4% rate of emergent surgery. The impact of new devices on the incidence and reversal rate of abrupt closure has not been examined. Abrupt closure occurred in 80 (4.2%) of 1,919 consecutive coronary angioplasties performed in our single center, 389 (20%) of which were performed using newer interventions (208 Palmaz-Schatz stents, 170 directional coronary atherectomies, and 11 elective laser balloon angioplasties). Abrupt closure was less frequent following newer coronary interventions (1.8%) compared to standard balloon angioplasty (4.9%, P < 0.01), possibly reflecting case selection. When abrupt closure did occur, percutaneous rescue was successful in 53 (66%) patients, including 42 (53%) who were rescued using standard or perfusion balloon angioplasty, and 11 (13%) who were rescued using laser balloon balloon angioplasty after failure of additional angioplasty attempts. Medical therapy alone was used in 8 (10%), while emergent coronary bypass surgery was performed in 18 (23%), yielding an overall emergent surgery rate of 0.9%. Q-wave myocardial infarction was significantly less frequent (0.2%) following percutaneous rescue, compared to either medical therapy (25%) or emergent surgery (33%, P < 0.001). In our catheterization laboratory, use of these 3 new coronary interventional devices coincides with a trend towards a lower incidence of abrupt closure, a higher percutaneous rescue rate with reduced incidence of myocardial infarction, and a lower emergent bypass surgery rate.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kuntz et al. (1992) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: