4.2 Article

Clinical Outcomes Following Covered Stent for the Treatment of Coronary Artery Perforation

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 569-575

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/joic.12347

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate short- and long-term outcomes of polytetrafluoroethylene covered stent for patients with coronary artery perforation. MethodsDuring April 2004 and February 2016, a total 48 patients underwent implantation using polytetrafluoroethylene-covered JOSTENT GraftMaster stents (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) in the native coronary arteries implantation for coronary artery perforation. Clinical outcomes such as target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction (MI), definite or possible stent thrombosis, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality were analyzed. ResultsThe average age of study patients was 68.0213.49 years, and the majorities were men (76.6%). The most frequent devices cause of perforation were stents (37.5%). Eighteen patients (37.5%) experienced cardiac tamponade and 20 patients (41.7%) underwent emergent pericardiocentesis. Only 1 patient (2.1%) experienced emergent surgical repair after covered stent. At the 30-day follow-up, the rate of all-cause mortality was 16.7% and cardiovascular mortality was 13.0%. At the 1-year follow-up, the rate of MI was 6.1%, the rate of TLR was 21.9%, the rate of definite or possible stent thrombosis was 15.6%, the rate of cardiovascular mortality was 22.0%, and the rate of all-cause mortality was 26.2%. Between the patients with and without cardiac tamponade, patients with cardiac tamponade had higher cardiovascular mortality in 30-day and also higher all-cause mortality in 30-day and 1-year follow-up. ConclusionThe covered stent could solve emergent condition for patients with coronary artery perforation with high TLR and stent thrombosis rate at long-term follow-up. The patients with cardiac tamponade had worse clinical outcomes in 30-day and 1-year follow-up.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据