Procedural and long-term outcomes of stent post dilatation during primary percutaneous coronary interventions

S. Ayad, A. Zaki, M. Sadaka, A. E. Amrawy
{"title":"Procedural and long-term outcomes of stent post dilatation during primary percutaneous coronary interventions","authors":"S. Ayad, A. Zaki, M. Sadaka, A. E. Amrawy","doi":"10.15761/JIC.1000299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n The role of stent post dilatation (SPD) during primary percutaneous intervention (PPCI) is controversial. Currently there are no clear guidelines or consensus regarding when to perform SPD and it is left to the operator decision.\n \n \n \n The aim of this study was to evaluate the procedural and long terms outcomes of SPD during PPCI.\n \n \n \n We collected retrospectively data of 614 STEMI patients who presented to two tertiary centers during one year period. All patients underwent PPCI. We excluded patients with cardiogenic shock, prior CABG, severe LM disease. Patients were divided into two groups according to SPD procedure. Group 1: who had SPD included 424 patients (69.1%). Group 2: no SPD included 190 patients (30.9%). Both groups were well matched with regard to demographic data and lesion characteristics. Procedural outcomes and clinical outcomes at one year were collected.\n \n \n \n SPD patients had significantly higher incidence of no reflow during the procedure (33.7% in group 1 vs. 21.6% in group 2, P=0.026), but the final TIMI flow was similar between two groups. Also, there was no significant difference between two groups regarding other procedural outcomes as dissection, perforation, or cardiac death. After one year follow up SPD patients had significantly higher incidence of reinfarction (5.6% of group 1 vs. 1.5% in group 2, P=0.03) and significantly more target vessel revascularization (TVR) (16.7% in group 1 vs. 4.7% in group 2 P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence cerebrovascular stroke (CVS), heart failure or cardiac death.\n \n \n \n Our study shows that SPD during PPCI is associated with an increased risk of procedural no reflow and increased risk of reinfarction as well as need for TVR after 1 year follow up. Finally, SPD did not improve clinical outcomes after 1 year follow up. Nonetheless, large-scale randomized trials are required to establish the role of SPD during PPCI.\n \n \n \n Type of funding sources: None.\n","PeriodicalId":91545,"journal":{"name":"Journal of integrative cardiology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of integrative cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15761/JIC.1000299","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The role of stent post dilatation (SPD) during primary percutaneous intervention (PPCI) is controversial. Currently there are no clear guidelines or consensus regarding when to perform SPD and it is left to the operator decision. The aim of this study was to evaluate the procedural and long terms outcomes of SPD during PPCI. We collected retrospectively data of 614 STEMI patients who presented to two tertiary centers during one year period. All patients underwent PPCI. We excluded patients with cardiogenic shock, prior CABG, severe LM disease. Patients were divided into two groups according to SPD procedure. Group 1: who had SPD included 424 patients (69.1%). Group 2: no SPD included 190 patients (30.9%). Both groups were well matched with regard to demographic data and lesion characteristics. Procedural outcomes and clinical outcomes at one year were collected. SPD patients had significantly higher incidence of no reflow during the procedure (33.7% in group 1 vs. 21.6% in group 2, P=0.026), but the final TIMI flow was similar between two groups. Also, there was no significant difference between two groups regarding other procedural outcomes as dissection, perforation, or cardiac death. After one year follow up SPD patients had significantly higher incidence of reinfarction (5.6% of group 1 vs. 1.5% in group 2, P=0.03) and significantly more target vessel revascularization (TVR) (16.7% in group 1 vs. 4.7% in group 2 P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence cerebrovascular stroke (CVS), heart failure or cardiac death. Our study shows that SPD during PPCI is associated with an increased risk of procedural no reflow and increased risk of reinfarction as well as need for TVR after 1 year follow up. Finally, SPD did not improve clinical outcomes after 1 year follow up. Nonetheless, large-scale randomized trials are required to establish the role of SPD during PPCI. Type of funding sources: None.
初次经皮冠状动脉介入治疗中支架扩张后的手术和长期结果
支架后扩张术(SPD)在初次经皮介入治疗(PPCI)中的作用是有争议的。目前,关于何时进行SPD,没有明确的指导方针或共识,由运营商决定。本研究的目的是评估PPCI期间SPD的程序和长期结果。我们收集了614名STEMI患者的回顾性数据,这些患者在一年内被送往两个三级中心。所有患者均接受PPCI。我们排除了心源性休克、既往冠状动脉旁路移植术、严重LM疾病的患者。根据SPD程序将患者分为两组。第1组:有SPD的患者包括424名患者(69.1%)。第2组:无SPD的包括190名患者(30.9%)。两组在人口统计学数据和病变特征方面匹配良好。收集一年的手术结果和临床结果。SPD患者在手术过程中无再流的发生率显著较高(第1组为33.7%,第2组为21.6%,P=0.026),但两组之间的最终TIMI流量相似。此外,两组在其他手术结果(如夹层、穿孔或心脏死亡)方面没有显著差异。经过一年的随访,SPD患者的再梗死发生率显著较高(第1组为5.6%,第2组为1.5%,P=0.03),靶血管血运重建(TVR)显著较高(第一组为16.7%,第二组为4.7%,P<0.001)。两组在脑血管卒中(CVS)、心力衰竭或心源性死亡的发生率方面没有显著差异。我们的研究表明,PPCI期间的SPD与手术无复流风险增加、再梗死风险增加以及1年随访后需要TVR有关。最后,SPD在1年的随访后并没有改善临床结果。尽管如此,需要进行大规模的随机试验来确定SPD在PPCI中的作用。资金来源类型:无。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信