Outcomes after use of covered stents to treat coronary artery perforations. Comparison of old and new-generation covered stents.

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes in patients receiving polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and polyurethane (PL) covered stents (CS) after coronary artery perforation (CAP).

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of CAP has improved with the advent of CSs. Information is scarce about the outcomes of new-generation CSs.

METHODS: Sixty-one patients were treated with CSs in a 5-years period (age = 77 ± 8.75% males). Procedural and clinical data were retrospectively collected. The primary endpoint was procedural success. Secondary endpoints included death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, target vessel, and lesion revascularization and need for surgical repair).

RESULTS: Twenty-two (36%) received PL-CSs and 39 (65%) PTFE-CSs. There were no differences in procedural success (86% vs 69%, P = 0.216). Time to deliver was shorter with PL-CS despite larger length of stents (8[11] vs 15[16] min, P = 0.001; 20[5] vs 16[3] mm, P < 0.001). This group had lower rate of pericardial effusion and cardiac arrest (41% vs 72%, P = 0.028; 5% vs 26%, P = 0.045). At 1-year follow-up, MACE rates were similar (58% vs 56%, P = 1.000) with atrend toward TVR in the PL-CS arm (21% vs 5%, P = 0.083). No differences were found in mortality (26% vs 41%, P = 0.385). Each group had 1 stent thrombosis and in-stent restenosis trended higher in the PL-CS group (12% vs 3%, P = 0.223).

CONCLUSIONS: Time to deliver was shorter with the PL-CS and resulted in lower rate of pericardial effusion and cardiac arrest. However, there were no significant differences in procedural success and 1-year follow-up MACE in patients treated with PL-CS or PTFE-CS.