Procedural and 1-year outcomes following large vessel coronary artery perforation treated by covered stents implantation: Multicentre CRACK registry

About the Authors:

Wojciech Wańha

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Department of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1220-9496

Rafał Januszek

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization

Affiliation: Second Department of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland

Michalina Kołodziejczak

Roles Data curation, Methodology

Affiliation: Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Antoni Jurasz University Hospital No. 1, Bydgoszcz, Poland

Łukasz Kuźma

Roles Data curation

Affiliation: Department of Invasive Cardiology, Medical University of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland

Mateusz Tajstra

Roles Methodology

Affiliation: Third Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland

Tomasz Figatowski

Roles Methodology

Affiliation: First Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland

Malwina Smolarek-Nicpoń

Roles Data curation

Affiliation: Department of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

Monika Gruz-Kwapisz

Roles Data curation

Affiliation: Department of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

Brunon Tomasiewicz

Roles Methodology

Affiliation: Department of Heart Disease, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

Jerzy Bartuś

Roles Data curation

Affiliation: Second Department of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland

Andrzej Łoś

Roles Data curation

Affiliation: Department of Cardiac and Vascular Surgery, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland

Dariusz Jagielak

Roles Methodology

Affiliation: Department of Cardiac and Vascular Surgery, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland

Tomasz Roleder

Roles Investigation, Methodology

Affiliation: Regional Specialist Hospital, Research and Development Center, Wroclaw, Poland

Adrian Włodarczak

Roles Data curation

Affiliation: Department of Cardiology, Miedziowe Centrum Zdrowia, Lubin, Poland

Jan Kulczycki

Roles Data curation

Affiliation: Department of Cardiology, Miedziowe Centrum Zdrowia, Lubin, Poland

ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6670-6044

Mariusz Kowalewski

Roles Investigation

Affiliations Department of Cardiac Surgery, Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of Interior, Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland, Thoracic Research Centre, Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Innovative Medical Forum, Bydgoszcz, Poland

Damian Hudziak

Roles Data curation

Affiliation: Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

Paweł Stachowiak

Roles Investigation, Methodology

Affiliations Regional Specialist Hospital, Research and Development Center, Wroclaw, Poland, Department of Cardiology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland

Jarosław Gorący

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis

Affiliation: Department of Cardiology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland

Katarzyna Sierakowska

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology

Affiliation: Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Antoni Jurasz University Hospital No. 1, Bydgoszcz, Poland

Krzysztof Reczuch

Roles Investigation

Affiliation: Department of Heart Disease, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

Miłosz Jaguszewski

Roles Methodology

Affiliation: First Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland

Sławomir Dobrzycki

Roles Investigation

Affiliation: Department of Invasive Cardiology, Medical University of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland

Grzegorz Smolka

Roles Investigation, Methodology

Affiliation: Department of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

Stanisław Bartuś

Roles Investigation

Affiliation: Second Department of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland

Andrzej Ochała

Roles Investigation

Affiliation: Department of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2484-967X

Mariusz Gąsior

Roles Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology

Affiliation: Third Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland

Wojciech Wojakowski

Roles Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft

Affiliation: Department of Cardiology and Structural Heart Diseases, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3681-5207

Introduction

Coronary artery perforations (CAPs) can occur during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 0.17%–0.43% of patients presenting with coronary artery disease [1, 2]; the incidence can rise up to 4.1–4.8% in complex procedures on calcified, chronically occluded vessels [3–5]. Almost 39% of CAPs occur at post dilatation stage, during the vessel preparation and stent optimization [6]; direct stenting is correlated with even a higher risk of CAP [5]. For non-severe perforation, conventional treatments (long-term balloon inflation or additional stent implantation) can be used. On contrary, they can also result in proximal massive artery rupture and subsequent life-threatening complications, including acute or late cardiac tamponade (up to a third of patients), which can lead to hemodynamic instability and sudden death. In such cases, the treatment must be prompt and effective. Usually, the covered stent (CS) implantation is the first-line treatment followed by cardiac surgery, if the bleeding persists [7]. The use of CS is an effective strategy for treating CAPs with favorable event-free survival [8]. The CS consists of a metallic stent platform covered with a synthetic or biological membrane that seals the blood extravasation. On the other hand, the material delays endothelialization and is potentially thrombogenic [9, 10]. The Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) showed that patients receiving CS have a significantly higher risk of adverse events as compared with drug-eluting stents [11]. However, data about clinical outcomes of CAP treated by CS implantation are scarce. Although the devices have been used for many years, only a small number of studies described periprocedural and long-term outcomes. In the current report we present procedural, in-hospital, and one-year results of patients treated with the CS implantation for iatrogenic, peri-PCI CAP.

Methods

The covered stent CAP (CRACK) Registry is a large multicenter, retrospective, observational study conducted in high-volume PCI centers. The dataset included consecutive patients with iatrogenic, peri-PCI CAP treated with CS implantation between January 2009 and October 2019. Patients who died during periprocedural period were excluded from the one-year analysis. The study’s angiographic data included in the study were collected, anonymized, and recorded in the central cardiovascular information registry. Outcome data were obtained from the central database of the National Health Fund Service of the Ministry of Health, and no patient was lost to follow-up. In case of re-PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting during the follow-up period, we additionally checked target vessel revascularization and target lesion revascularization (TLR). The patients’ data were fully anonymized in each center, combined into the database, and statistically analyzed together as a single cohort. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical University of Silesia. The patient’s data was protected according to the requirements of Polish law, GDPR, and hospital Standard Operating Procedures. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04630314).

Procedure

CS implantation and the type and duration of antithrombotic treatment was at the operator’s discretion, in accordance with the recommendations of the clinical practice guidelines [12]. All stents were implanted into a vessel of minimum 2 mm diameter and were delivered to the perforated segment.

Angiography analysis

The morphology of the stented lesion was defined according to the classification proposed by the ACC/AHA (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association) [13]. Lesion length, percentage diameter stenosis, and the coronary flow (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction—TIMI classification) were assessed in all patients. The three-stage Ellis classification was used to determine the degree of perforation based on the angiographic manifestation [14].

Patient follow-up and study endpoints

The primary endpoint was the composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiac death, TLR, and myocardial infarction (MI) assessed after 30 days and one year from the index procedure. Secondary endpoints were stent thrombosis (ST) and the individual events of the primary composite endpoint. TLR was defined as any revascularization procedure within the treated lesion. ST was defined as acute (0-24h post stent implantation), subacute (from 24h to 30 days post stent implantation), or late (from 30 days to 1 year after stent implantation) [15]. Successful perforation sealing was defined as no contrast leak, and no cardiac surgery intervention needed after CS implantation.

Statistical analysis

Baseline clinical characteristics data are shown as means and standard deviation or numbers and percentages. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to present the unadjusted time-to-event data for MACE. Categorical data were analyzed with the Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. The statistical analysis was performed using Medcalc 17.9.2 (Medcalc software).

Results

Baseline clinical characteristics

The multicentre CRACK Registry enrolled 119 patients (Fig 1). The mean age was 68.9 ± 9.7 years, and 66 (55.5%) patients were men. ACS was the presenting diagnosis in 73 (61.3%) of cases [21 (17.6%) unstable angina, 26 (21,8%) NSTEMI, 26 (21.8%) STEMI] and chronic coronary syndromes in 46 (38.7%). Forty three (36,1%) patients had a history of MI, 45 (37.8%) had a previous PCI, and 15 (12.6%) had a prior coronary artery bypass grafting. The baseline clinical characteristics are presented in Table 1.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. Study flow chart.

PCI—percutaneous coronary intervention; CV- cardiovascular; MACE- major adverse cardiac events; MI- myocardial infarction; ST- sent thrombosis; TLR- target lesion revascularization.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249698.g001

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. The baseline clinical characteristics of the patients.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249698.t001

Angiographic and procedural characteristics

The angiographic and procedural characteristics are summarised in Table 2. Procedurally, most often-treated vessel territory was the left anterior descending (LAD) artery 58 (48.7%). According to ACC/AHA, the most common lesion type was C 47 (39.5%). The mean degree of stenosis was 88.3 ± 11.5%, and the mean length of stenosis was 27.5 ± 14.4mm. Complex PCI, such as chronic total occlusion (CTO), tortuosity, bifurcation, or severe calcification, was reported in 73 (61.3%) of cases, respectively. The mechanism of perforation was a balloon dilatation in 17 (14.3%) patients, stent implantation in 99 (83.2%) patients, and rotablation in 13 (10.9%) patients. A total of 52 patients (43.7%) had type 3 Ellis classification and 28 patients (23.5%) had type 2 followed by 39 patients (32.8%) with type 1 perforation. The following CS were used: 55 (46.2%) PK Papyrus (Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland), 51 (42.9%) Graftmaster (Abbot Vascular, Santa Clara, CA), 2 (1.7%) Direct-Stent (Technologies Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA), 6 (5.0%) BeGraft (Bentley Innomed GmbH, Hechingen, Germany), 5 (4.2%) Aneugraft Dx (ITGI Medical, Or Akiva, Israel) (Table 2). The number of CS per patient was 1.1 ± 0.4, with a mean diameter of 3.2 ± 0.5 and a length of 18.8 ± 4.3mm. Effective perforation sealing was achieved in 83.2%, and angiographic success (TIMI 3) was observed in 84.0%. Intravascular imaging was used in 5% of cases. Coronary dissection or no-reflow phenomenon was observed in 23.5% and 6.7% of cases after PCI, respectively.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Angiographic and procedural characteristics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249698.t002

Periprocedural data

The periprocedural data are summarised in Table 3. A total of 46 (38.7%) patients developed cardiac tamponade either during or post-procedure. However, the pericardiocentesis was performed in 45 (37.8%) patients. Cardiogenic shock was observed in 30 (25.2%) patients. Notably, emergency cardiac surgery was performed in 14 (11.8%) patients. Six patients, during the procedure, required the use of mechanical circulatory support.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 3. Peri-procedural data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249698.t003

Clinical endpoints

The clinical study endpoints are summarised in Table 4 and Fig 1. Periprocedural death was observed in eight patients (6.7%), of which two patients required emergency cardiac surgery. Those patients were excluded from the one-year analysis. Successful sealing of a CAP with a CS implantation was achieved in 99 (83.2%) patients. Twelve (10.1%) patients had persistent bleeding despite CS implantation and had emergency cardiac surgery. Cumulative 30-day MACEs were observed in 15 (15.1%) patients. Of those 6 (6.1%) patients experienced cardiac death, 8 (8.1%) TLR, and 6 (6.1%) MIs. Furthermore, four (4.0%) patients had acute stent thrombosis (ST), and one patient (1.0%) had subacute ST. During 12-months follow-up, the cumulative MACEs were observed in 26 (26.2%) patients, of those 7 (7.1%) patients experienced cardiac death, 13 (13.1%) TLR, 11 (11.0%) MIs. One patient (1.0%) had late ST. Fig 2 shows the Kaplan Meier curve for MACE in patients who received CS for treating CAPs. The subanalysis of type of CS used and 1-year follow-up showed a lower incidence of MI in PK Papyrus CS compared to the Graftmaster CS [2 (4.3%) vs. 7 (17.1%), p = 0.014] (S1 Table). In the first 30-day follow-up, only one TLR was observed in patients who underwent emergency cardiac surgery. During 12-month follow-up, the cumulative MACEs were observed in 2 (14.2%) patients, of those 1 (7.1%) patient experienced TLR, and one (7.1%) had MI.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2. Kaplan–Meier curves for MACE in patients with CAP treated by CS implantation.

MACE- major adverse cardiac events.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249698.g002

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 4. 30-days and 1-year follow up after successful sealing by CS implantation (n = 99).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249698.t004

Discussion

To our knowledge, the current report is one of the largest analyses presenting in-hospital and one-year clinical outcomes following CAPs during PCI treated by CS implantation. The main findings of the present study can be summarized as follows: 1) CS implantation provides prompt and effective treatment of CAP; 2) 83% of perforations were successfully sealed; 3) the use of CS post-CAPs heralds a relatively elevated risk of stent thrombosis and MACE at one year of follow-up.

The CAP is a challenging PCI complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A number of previous reports addressed the prevalence and the risk profile predisposing to CAPs [2, 7]. The combination of multiple factors contributes to the increased risk of CAP and the subsequent adverse events such as pericardial effusion or cardiac tamponade: female sex, older age, calcified coronary arteries, complex coronary lesions, previous coronary artery bypass grafting, or rotational atherectomy procedures [7, 16–18]. Studies assessing CAP presented significantly higher morbidity and mortality compared to an uncomplicated PCI, with a potential of an improvement of outcomes post-CS implantation [5, 8, 19]. The implantation of CS is a standard of care in patients with persistent CAP bleeding. However, while CSs were found to terminate CAP bleeding, at the same time (probably due to its delayed endothelialisation), it increases the thrombotic risk, and in particular, ST. Additionally, in the CAP PCI, the ST risk is generally higher than during non-CAP PCI, due to the presence of complex lesions [20]. The optimal management of CAP patients is maintaining a balance between bleeding risk and the risk of CS thrombosis. Still, the stent implantation in CAP can be a life-saving procedure, as compared with emergency cardiac surgery. In the pre-CS era, where cardiac surgery was required in 50–65% of the CAP cases, and 20% of them resulted in death [14]. Large CAPs treated by CS implantation pose an exceptionally high risk of ST, target lesion failure, and MACE. Al-Lamee et al. [21] reported an incidence of definite stent thrombosis of 8.6% (4/46 patients at three years of follow-up) and MACE of 41.3% (19/46 patients at three years of follow-up) in grade III CAP patients treated with CS [21]. In another study Kawamoto et al. [22] evaluated the 57 patients with CAP treated with CSs implantation. The MACE rates were 28% at 30 days, 22% at 1 year, and 38% at 3 years. The rates of target lesion revascularization were 8% and 12% at 1 and 3 years, respectively, which was in accordance with other contemporary big data registers. Harnek et al. [5], in the subgroup analysis of the CSs used in the SCAAR Registry, reported 166 patients post CAP treated by CS. During a one-year follow-up, they found a high number of adverse events with 3.6% of ST and 34.3% of MACE, respectively. In another study, Hachinohe et al. [19] assessed CSs performance in 53 CAPs lesions, with 81% of Graftmaster (Abbot Vascular, Santa Clara, CA) stents used. During a 1-year follow-up, the authors noted 19.6% TLRs, followed by 41.6% at 10-years and 11.9% STs at one year followed by 23.9% at 10-years. Notably, the adverse events frequently occurred in the first year and gradually increased through follow-up. Timing of these events were in line with previous studies in our registry, with 6.1% ST and 26.2% with MACE during a one-year follow-up. Indeed, Jurado-Román et al. [23] presented the homogenous group of 52 patients treated with PK Papyrus CS (Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland) in CAPs in long term follow up (mean 22±16 months) and, in contrast to other studies, revealed no ST and low incidence of MACE 4 (7.7%). PK Papyrus CS represents a new generation of CS, with a covered single stent based on the Orsiro / PRO-Kinetic Energy platform (Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland). It has a polyurethane membrane with a thickness of 90 μm. This construction, physiochemical and mechanical properties improves flexibility and may reduce the incidence of ST. In our study we also observed the reduction of the incidence of MI in PK Papyrus CS compered to Graftmaster CS. Previous published series on coronary perforation with covered stent implantation are demonstrated in Table 5. In case of CAP, it is difficult to establish whether the increased thrombogenicity potential is only due to the CS or the overlap of drug-eluting stents and CS; the vascular damage was usually associated with manipulation around the stenosis, and the majority of causes of CAP was stent implantation. Notably, it has been proven that suboptimal PCI results in stent underexpansion, struts malapposition, edge dissections, and residual lesions of the treated territory all of which have been well-known risk factors of ST [24, 25]. Probably intravascular imaging with intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography should be performed in those cases to avoid suboptimal PCI results. The need to have life saving devices like covered stents available in the cath lab at all times in order to bail out patients who suffer fatal complications like perforation during PCI and avoid emergency surgery. This is also represented by our data—every third patient required pericardiocentesis, every fifth, blood transfusion, and every tenth emergency cardiac surgery. Emergency cardiac surgery is burdened with high risk of cardiovascular complications. The costs of surgery and hospitalization at the cardiac intensive care unit, together with the risk of periprocedural complications, significantly increases the risk of adverse clinical outcomes, further rehabilitation, and decreased quality of life. That is why it is worthy to invest in technologies and in the training of operators because a high percentage of CAP was successfully managed with the endovascular method. Our study also presents 30-day and one-year follow up data. Clinical events occurred predominantly in the acute and subacute period, up to 30 days after the index procedure. Favourable long-term outcomes of the CS, as demonstrated in our study, suggest that CS implantation in the course of CAP is a safe solution for the treatment of this life-threatening complication. Taking into account the effectiveness of the procedure performed, the number of patients that required cardiac surgery, and the long-term follow-up, the CS implantation in the course of CAP is a safe solution for the treatment of a life-threatening complication.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 5. Previous published series on coronary perforation with covered stent implantation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249698.t005

Study limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, we had no data on intravascular imaging data, and thus the mechanism of recorded ST is unknown. Second, there was a lack of quantitative findings such as reference vessel diameter or minimal lumen diameter.

Conclusions

Implantation of CS is a successful treatment of CAPs. This real-world data on CAPs treated with covered stents illustrated that the procedural and 1-year outcomes of CAP treated by CS implantation warrant diligent follow-up of the patients as they are at increased risk of MACE. Events of ST warrant further studies and use of intravascular imaging to optimize the CS implantation may be indicated.

Learning objectives

Coronary artery perforation (CAP) can be a life-threatening complication of percutaneous coronary intervention, which requires a rapid treatment. The covered stents (CS) emerge as a promising solution that can successfully seal the perforation in 83% of cases. All post-CAP patients treated by CSs implantation should be closely followed due to high risk of stent thrombosis or other adverse cardiac events.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Subanalysis of type of covered stent uses 1-year follow up (n = 99, 100%).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249698.s001

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The Scientific Platform of the "Club 30" of the Polish Cardiac Society initiated the CRACK Registry.

Citation: Wańha W, Januszek R, Kołodziejczak M, Kuźma Ł, Tajstra M, Figatowski T, et al. (2021) Procedural and 1-year outcomes following large vessel coronary artery perforation treated by covered stents implantation: Multicentre CRACK registry. PLoS ONE 16(5): e0249698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249698

References

1. Shimony A, Joseph L, Mottillo S, Eisenberg MJ. Coronary artery perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol 2011;27:843–50. pmid:21862280

2. Rakowski T, Wegiel M, Siudak Z et al. Prevalence and Predictors of Coronary Artery Perforation During Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (from the ORPKI National Registry in Poland). Am J Cardiol 2019;124:1186–1189. pmid:31439282

3. Tajti P, Burke MN, Karmpaliotis D et al. Update in the Percutaneous Management of Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018;11:615–625. pmid:29550088

4. Danek BA, Karatasakis A, Tajti P et al. Incidence, Treatment, and Outcomes of Coronary Perforation During Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. Am J Cardiol 2017;120:1285–1292. pmid:28826896

5. Harnek J, James S, Lagerqvist B. Coronary Artery Perforation and Tamponade- Incidence, Risk Factors, Predictors and Outcomes From 12 Years’ Data of the SCAAR Registry. Circ J 2019;84:43–53. pmid:31813890

6. Krishnegowda C, Puttegowda B, Krishnappa S et al. "Incidence, clinical and angiographic characteristics, management and outcomes of coronary artery perforation at a high volume cardiac care center during percutaneous coronary intervention". Indian Heart J 2020;72:232–238. pmid:32861375

7. Lemmert ME, van Bommel RJ, Diletti R et al. Clinical Characteristics and Management of Coronary Artery Perforations: A Single-Center 11-Year Experience and Practical Overview. J Am Heart Assoc 2017;6. pmid:28939719

8. Briguori C, Nishida T, Anzuini A, Di Mario C, Grube E, Colombo A. Emergency polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent implantation to treat coronary ruptures. Circulation 2000;102:3028–31. pmid:11120690

9. Kilic ID, Fabris E, Serdoz R et al. Coronary covered stents. EuroIntervention 2016;12:1288–1295. pmid:27866138

10. Takano M, Yamamoto M, Murakami D et al. Lack of association between large angiographic late loss and low risk of in-stent thrombus: angioscopic comparison between paclitaxel- and sirolimus-eluting stents. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2008;1:20–7. pmid:20031651

11. Harnek J, James SK, Lagerqvist B. Very long-term outcome of coronary covered stents: a report from the SCAAR registry. EuroIntervention 2019;14:1660–1667. pmid:30375337

12. Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019;40:87–165. pmid:30165437

13. Ryan TJ, Faxon DP, Gunnar RM et al. Guidelines for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (Subcommittee on Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty). Circulation 1988;78:486–502. pmid:2969312

14. Ellis SG, Ajluni S, Arnold AZ et al. Increased coronary perforation in the new device era. Incidence, classification, management, and outcome. Circulation 1994;90:2725–30. pmid:7994814

15. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007;115:2344–51. pmid:17470709

16. Januszek RA, Dziewierz A, Siudak Z, Rakowski T, Dudek D, Bartus S. Predictors of periprocedural complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions within coronary artery bypass grafts. Cardiol J 2019;26:633–644. pmid:29671862

17. Parikh P, Banerjee K, Sammour Y et al. Utilization and outcomes of polytetrafluoroethylene covered stents in patients with coronary artery perforation and coronary artery aneurysm: Single center 15-year experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019;94:555–561. pmid:31429192

18. Surdacki MA, Major M, Chyrchel M et al. Urgent Pericardiocentesis Is More Frequently Needed After Left Circumflex Coronary Artery Perforation. J Clin Med 2020;9. pmid:32967327

19. Hachinohe D, Latib A, Laricchia A et al. Long-term follow-up of covered stent implantation for various coronary artery diseases. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019;94:571–577. pmid:30773795

20. Nakano M, Yahagi K, Otsuka F et al. Causes of early stent thrombosis in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome: an ex vivo human autopsy study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:2510–2520. pmid:24768883

21. Al-Lamee R, Ielasi A, Latib A et al. Incidence, predictors, management, immediate and long-term outcomes following grade III coronary perforation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:87–95. pmid:21251634

22. Kawamoto H, Tanaka K, Ruparelia N et al. Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes After Polytetrafluoroethylene-Covered Stent Implantation for the Treatment of Coronary Perforation. Am J Cardiol 2015;116:1822–6. pmid:26602072

23. Jurado-Roman A, Rodriguez O, Amat I et al. Clinical outcomes after implantation of polyurethane-covered cobalt-chromium stents. Insights from the Papyrus-Spain registry. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2020. pmid:32859538

24. Fujii K, Carlier SG, Mintz GS et al. Stent underexpansion and residual reference segment stenosis are related to stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation: an intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:995–8. pmid:15808753

25. Choi SY, Witzenbichler B, Maehara A et al. Intravascular ultrasound findings of early stent thrombosis after primary percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction: a Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS-AMI) substudy. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011;4:239–47. pmid:21586693

26. Chen S, Lotan C, Jaffe R et al. Pericardial covered stent for coronary perforations. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2015;86:400–4. pmid:26155775

27. Lee WC, Hsueh SK, Fang CY, Wu CJ, Hang CL, Fang HY. Clinical Outcomes Following Covered Stent for the Treatment of Coronary Artery Perforation. J Interv Cardiol 2016;29:569–575. pmid:27781308

28. Guttmann OP, Jones DA, Gulati A et al. Prevalence and outcomes of coronary artery perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention 2017;13:e595–e601. pmid:28414656

29. Mirza AJ, Taha AY, Aldoori JS, Hawas JM, Hassan KW. Coronary artery perforation complicating percutaneous coronary intervention. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2018;26:101–106. pmid:29338301

30. Kufner S, Schacher N, Ferenc M et al. Outcome after new generation single-layer polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent implantation for the treatment of coronary artery perforation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019;93:912–920. pmid:30467994

31. Kandzari DE, Birkemeyer R. PK Papyrus covered stent: Device description and early experience for the treatment of coronary artery perforations. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019;94:564–568. pmid:31033148

32. Rosseel L, Scott B, Prihadi E et al. Is a covered stent justifiable in the treatment of coronary artery perforation? An observational analysis of long-term results of two different covered stent types. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2019;93:419–425. pmid:30280487

33. Itoh T, Kimura T, Kudo A et al. Clinical and procedure characteristics in patients treated with polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stents after coronary perforation: a CIRC-8U multicenter registry and literature review. Cardiovasc Interv Ther 2020. pmid:33037569

34. Cerrato E, Pavani M, Barbero U et al. Incidence, Management, Immediate and Long-Term Outcome of Guidewire and Device Related Grade III Coronary Perforations (from G3CAP—Cardiogroup VI Registry). Am J Cardiol 2021;143:37–45. pmid:33387472

35. Hernandez-Enriquez M, Lairez O, Campelo-Parada F et al. Outcomes after use of covered stents to treat coronary artery perforations. Comparison of old and new-generation covered stents. J Interv Cardiol 2018;31:617–623. pmid:29808511