ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2022
Coronary artery perforation after bioresorbable scaffold implantation treated with a new generation covered stent-OCT insights.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary artery perforation is a rare but potentially lethal complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with an associated mortality of 7-17%. We report the case of coronary artery perforation complicating Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation and the associated technical challenges with managing this life-threatening complication. CASE REPORT: A 46-year-old male was referred to our institution and underwent PCI with an Absorb bioabsorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) to a proximal LAD long segment bifurcation lesion. Following pre-dilation and deployment of the 3.5 × 28 mm Absorb BVS, high pressure post-dilation of the distal scaffold was complicated by a large, Ellis type III coronary perforation with no flow to the distal LAD beyond the rupture, and associated with a large pericardial effusion confirmed on bedside transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE). The insult was temporised with prolonged balloon inflation within the Absorb BVS immediately proximal to the site of perforation, permitting urgent insertion of a pericardial drain. After deflation of the balloon, a 3.0 × 21 mm BeGraft covered stent was deployed across the perforation, restoring normal LAD flow and abolishing the perforation. Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation was not required and the patient remained conscious throughout the procedure. TTE demonstrated normal left ventricular function and the patient was discharged 3 days later. Repeat angiography at 3 months showed patent stents with TIMI III flow, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) showed good expansion and apposition of the proximal Absorb BVS and BeGraft. The patient has remained well 4 years after PCI with no major cardiovascular events.
conclusionThe utility of bioresorbable scaffold technology remains controversial although meticulous implantation techniques are associated with improved clinical outcomes. Adoption of the Pre-dilatation, Sizing and Post-dilatation ('PSP') method of BVS implantation with routine aggressive vessel preparation and scaffold optimization however may contribute to a higher risk of vessel perforation. The case emphasises the importance of accurate sizing of the vessel with intracoronary imaging and demonstrates the value of newer generation covered stents with single-layer design and slimmer crossing profile producing improved deliverability and procedural success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.