“Kissing-Balloon” Angioplasty Associated Coronary Artery Perforation in Anterior STEMI: A Cautionary Tale

Main Article Content

Iván Alfonso Vargas Moreno
Mario Alberto Álvarez Rodríguez
Héctor Adrián Gámez Alvarado
José Eduardo Gómez Garay
Gerardo Ayala Almonte
Yoselin Esparza Monreal
Luis Delgado Leal
José Tomás Flores Flores
Cinthya Judith López Ramírez
Luis Rodrigo González Azuara
Federico García Soriano

Abstract

Introduction: Bifurcation technique angioplasty remains one of the most challenging procedures in interventional cardiology, up to 10% of patient with STEMI present with a bifurcation as the culprit lesion. Coronary artery perforation is a known complication of percutaneous coronary intervention and complex coronary anatomy is often posed as a risk factor. Interventional and surgical management of coronary artery perforation is indicated as soon as possible.


Case presentation: A 55-year-old male was admitted to the emergency room with severe chest pain 12-hour prior to his admission. An anterior STEMI was diagnosed, and the patient underwent emergency coronary angiography with a bifurcation lesion of the mid LAD and D1, after transient loss of anterograde flow a secondary vessel a “kissing-balloon” technique was performed and type III coronary artery perforation in the Ellis classification of the side-branch was identified. Patient developed cardiogenic shock and urgent thoracotomy was performed. The patient was discharged in good conditions.


Conclusion: Coronary artery perforation is a feared complication of percutaneous coronary intervention. Chest pain and hemodynamic deterioration can quickly lead to patient’s death. Identification as soon as possible and interventional or surgical management must be performed.

Article Details

How to Cite
Iván Alfonso Vargas Moreno, Mario Alberto Álvarez Rodríguez, Héctor Adrián Gámez Alvarado, José Eduardo Gómez Garay, Gerardo Ayala Almonte, Yoselin Esparza Monreal, Luis Delgado Leal, José Tomás Flores Flores, Cinthya Judith López Ramírez, Luis Rodrigo González Azuara, & Federico García Soriano. (2024). “Kissing-Balloon” Angioplasty Associated Coronary Artery Perforation in Anterior STEMI: A Cautionary Tale. International Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Research Studies, 4(10), 1871–1875. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmscrs/v4-i10-26
Section
Articles

References

I. Pan, M., & Ojeda, S. (2018). Bifurcation lesions causing a STEMI. Are they a different animal? Revista Espanola de Cardiologia (English Ed.), 71(10), 779–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2018.03.018

II. Choi, K. H., Song, Y. B., Jeong, J.-O., et al. (2018). Treatment strategy for STEMI with bifurcation culprit lesion undergoing primary PCI: The COBIS II registry. Revista Espanola de Cardiologia (English Ed.), 71(10), 811–819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2018.01.002

III. Guttmann, O., Jones, D., Gulati, A., et al. (2017). Prevalence and outcomes of coronary artery perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention. EuroIntervention: Journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 13(5), e595–e601. https://doi.org/10.4244/eij-d-16-01038

IV. Harnek, J., James, S. y Lagerqvist, B. (2019) «Coronary artery perforation and tamponade - incidence, risk factors, predictors and outcomes from 12 years’ data of the SCAAR registry», Circulation journal: official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society, 84(1), pp. 43-53. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-19-0757

V. Lemmert, M. E., van Bommel, R. J., Diletti, R., et al. (2017). Clinical characteristics and management of coronary artery perforations: A single-center 11-year experience and practical overview. Journal of the American Heart Association, 6(9). https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.007049

VI. Kiernan, T. J., Yan, B. P., Ruggiero, N., et al. (2009). Coronary artery perforations in the contemporary interventional era. Journal of Interventional Cardiology, 22(4), 350–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8183.2009.00469.x

VII. Javaid, A., Buch, A. N., Satler, L. F., et al. (2006). Management and outcomes of coronary artery perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention. The American Journal of Cardiology, 98(7), 911–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.04.032

VIII. Kilic, I. D., Alihanoglu, Y. I., Yildiz, S. B., et al. (2013). Coronary artery perforations: four different cases and a review. Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia [Portuguese Journal of Cardiology], 32(10), 811–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repc.2013.02.016

IX. Ellis, S. G., Ajluni, S., Arnold, A. Z., et al. (1994). Increased coronary perforation in the new device era. Incidence, classification, management, and outcome. Circulation, 90(6), 2725–2730. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.90.6.2725

X. Hendry, C., Fraser, D., Eichhofer, J., et al. (2012). Coronary perforation in the drug-eluting stent era: incidence, risk factors, management, and outcome: the UK experience. EuroIntervention: Journal of EuroPCR in Collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 8(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV8I1A13

XI. Al-Lamee, R., Ielasi, A., Latib, A., et al. (2011). Incidence, predictors, management, immediate and long-term outcomes following grade III coronary perforation. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions, 4(1), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2010.08.026

Most read articles by the same author(s)