Clinical Outcomes following Large Vessel Coronary Artery Perforation Treated with Covered Stent Implantation: Comparison between Polytetrafluoroethylene- and Polyurethane-Covered Stents (CRACK-II Registry)

Abstract

Data on the clinical outcomes comparing synthetic fluorocarbon polymer polytetrafluoroethylene- (PTFE, GraftMaster) and polyurethane- (Papyrus) covered stents (CSs) to seal coronary artery perforations (CAPs) are limited. We aimed to evaluate 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes after PCI complicated by CAP and treated with CS. We assessed 106 consecutive patients with successful CAP sealing (122 CSs): GraftMaster (51 patients, 57 CSs) or Papyrus CS (55 patients, 65 CSs). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and myocardial infarction (MI). The mean age of subjects was 69 ± 9.6 years (53.8% males). No significant differences were identified between the GraftMaster and Papyrus groups at the 30-day follow-up for MACE, cardiac death, MI and stent thrombosis (ST), while significantly lower rate of TLR and TVR (p = 0.02) were confirmed in the Papyrus group. At one year, differences remained similar between stents for MACE, a trend towards a lower rate of TLR (p = 0.07), MI (p = 0.08), and ST (p = 0.08), and higher for cardiac death (p = 0.07) was observed in the Papyrus group. This real-life registry of CAP illustrated that the use of Papyrus CS is associated with lower rates of TLR and TVR at 30-day follow-up in comparison to the GraftMaster CSs and no significant differences between both assessed CS at one year of follow-up.

Keywords

• coronary artery perforation
• clinical outcomes
• covered stents
• PTFE and polyurethane stent comparison