Coronary perforation occurring during percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with persistent high inpatient mortality and complications ================================================================================================================================================= * Mohammad Reza Movahed * Nishant Satapathy * Mehrtash Hashemzadeh ## Abstract **Background** Coronary perforation is one of the major complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The goal of this study was to evaluate adverse outcomes and mortality in patients suffering from coronary perforation during PCI above the age of 30. **Methods** The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, years 2016-2020, was studied using ICD 10 codes. Patients suffering from perforation were compared to patients without perforation during PCI. **Results** PCI was performed in a weighted total of 10,059,269 patients. Coronary perforation occurred in 11,725 (0.12 %) of all PCI performed. The mortality rate of patients with perforations was very high in comparison to patients without perforations. (12.9% vs 2.5%, OR: 5.6, CI:5-6.3 p<0.001). Furthermore, patients with coronary perforations had much higher rates of urgent coronary bypass surgery, tamponade, cardiac arrest, and major cardiovascular outcomes. Mortality remained high and over 10% in the 5-year study period. **Conclusion** Using a large national inpatient database, all-cause inpatient mortality in patients with coronary perforation is very high (over 10%) with persistently high mortality rates over the years study suggesting that treatment of perforations needs further improvement. Key words * percutaneous coronary intervention * stenting * angioplasty * Outcome * perforation * coronary intervention * complications * mortality ## Introduction Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is predominant a nonsurgical treatment option for coronary artery disease with appropriate indication (CAD)1. PCI is a major indication in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS)1,2,4. As of 2017, there are more than 230 PCIs per 100,000 people in the US3. Despite its widespread use, PCI is less indicated in stable CAD and is mostly done for symptom relief. PCI is associated with cardiac and vascular complications, one of which is coronary perforation is a major one7. Defined as a tear in the coronary artery during PCI, coronary perforations are classified as one of three classes. The first, an “extraluminal crater without extraversion”, and second, “pericardial or myocardial blushing,” can be treated conservatively, while the third class, a perforation with a diameter greater than 1 mm, has been deemed the most life-threatening12,13. Despite having an incidence rate of 0.5%, coronary perforation continues to be a major complication of PCI and has been associated with an increased incidence of MI, CABG, and mortality8,9,10. In addition, individuals who experienced perforation were at an increased risk for complications prior to the procedure, such as MI, cardiogenic shock, stroke, and pericardial tamponade9. 1 in 250 PCIs still lead to coronary perforations6. There remains a need for a large database analysis of clinical outcomes and mortality rates for individuals experiencing perforations due to PCI9,10-17. Using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), this study evaluates adverse outcomes and mortality in patients suffering from coronary perforation during PCI above the age of 30. ## Methods ### Data Source Deidentified, publicly available patient data was obtained from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The dataset includes discharge data for 2,011,854 patients (10,059,269 after discharge weights were applied), which counts to a sample of 20% of the discharges from U.S. hospitals and close to 98% of the total U.S. population. Due to the open-source nature of the data without any patient identifier, our study is exempt from institutional review. ### Study Population Patient data from 2016-2020 was analyzed for this study. International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Procedure Coding System (ICD-10-PCS) codes were used to identify patients who had PCI. These ICD-10-PCS codes were 02703(4-7)Z, 02703(D-G)Z, 02703TZ, 02713(4-7)Z, 02713(D-G)Z, 02713TZ, 02723(4-7)Z, 02723(D-G)Z, 02723TZ, 02733(4-7)Z, 02733(D-G)Z, 02733TZ, 02H(0-3)3DZ, 02H(0-3)3YZ, 027(0-3)3ZZ, 02C(0-3)3Z7, 02C(0-3)3ZZ, 02F(0-3)3ZZ. The ICD-10-CM code I97.51 was then used to identify patients who had the adverse event of coronary perforation. All patients analyzed had an age above 30 years. Age, gender, and race were then used to for demographic analyses. ### Codes for study Outcomes Outcomes analyzed included mortality and complications, specifically pericardial effusion (I31.3), cardiac tamponade (I31.4), acute lactic acidosis (E87.20), sepsis (A40, A41, R65.2, T81.4, T83.7, A48.3, B37.7, A54.86), nontraumatic ischemic infarction of muscle (M62.2), atherosclerosis of extremity arteries with rest pain (I70.22), atherosclerosis of extremity arteries with gangrene (I70.26), ischemia/infarction of the kidney (N28.0), injury of the kidney (S37.0), acute kidney failure (N17.9), postprocedural kidney failure (N99.0), acute posthemorrhagic anemia/anemia following acute blood loss (D62), elevation of lactic acid dehydrogenase (R74.02), hemorrhage, not elsewhere classified (R58), acute postprocedural respiratory failure (J95.821), disseminated intravascular coagulation (D65), mechanical complications of other cardiac and vascular devices and implants (T82.5), blood transfusion (30233N, 30243N, 30233P, 30243P, 30250P, 30260P, 30250N, 30260N, 30253P, 30263P, 30253N, 30263N, 30230N, 30240N, 30230P, 30240P), cardiac arrest (I46, I97.71, I97.12), and stroke (I60-I63, I65, I66). ### Statistical Analysis Patient demographics, specifically age, gender, race, and median income, clinical and hospital characteristics were analyzed as means and 95% confidence intervals were provided. Chi-squared analyses provided results to analyze trends over time for categorical variables. To analyze trends over time for continuous variables, univariate linear regression was used. Multivariable logistic regression yielded values for clinical outcomes relative to patient and hospital characteristics and their odds over time. Significance was determined as 2-sided p-values where p<.05 was defined as statistically significant. STATA 17 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX) was used for all statistical analyses. ## Results A total of 10,059,269 patients underwent PCI, of which 11,725 (0.12%) experienced a coronary perforation. The average age of the subjects in the study was 70.04 (CI: 69.98 – 70.04), where individuals aged 61+ made up a majority of the cohort (77.84%). 63.68% of the cohort were men and 36.32% were women. Moreover, 77.03% of the study cohort was Caucasian. (*Table 1*). The most common expected primary payer for the cohort was Medicare (69.85%). View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/07/2024.01.04.24300874/T1) Table 1: Study Demographics Based on univariate analyses of the occurrence of coronary perforation in PCI patients with an age above 30 years old, individuals who experienced coronary perforation had a significantly higher death rate (12.97%) than individuals who did not (2.57%) (Odds Ratio [OR], 5.64; CI, 5.00–6.37; p<0.001). (*Figure 2*). In addition, as perforation rate has increased from 0.11% in 2016 to 0.12% in 2020, perforation death has also increased from 10.76% in 2016 to 13.26% in 2020. (*Figure 1,2*). ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/07/2024.01.04.24300874/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/07/2024.01.04.24300874/F1) Figure 1. Perforation rates have consistently been 0.11% and above from 2019-2020. ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/07/2024.01.04.24300874/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/07/2024.01.04.24300874/F2) Figure 2. The mortality rate of patients with perforations was very high in comparison to patients without perforations. (12.9% vs 2.5%, OR: 5.6, CI:5-6.3 p<0.001). In terms of complications, when compared with individuals who did not have a coronary perforation, those that had a coronary perforation as a result of PCI also experienced significantly greater percentages of pericardial effusion (21.19%; p<0.001), cardiac tamponade (21.02%; p<0.001), acute lactic acidosis (12.71%; p<0.001), nontraumatic ischemic infarction of the muscle (0.09%; p<0.001), atherosclerosis of extremity arteries with rest pain (0.72%; p<0.001), postprocedural acute kidney failure (0.43%; p<0.001), acute posthemorrhagic anemia or anemia following acute blood loss (26.14%; p<0.001), acute postprocedural respiratory failure (2.47%; p<0.001), disseminated intravascular coagulation (0.94%; p<0.001), and cardiac arrest (5.37%; p<0.001). The only complication that had a higher percentage of occurrence in individuals who did not have a coronary perforation because of PCI was sepsis (7.02% of individuals without coronary perforation; p<.001). (*Figure 3*). ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/01/07/2024.01.04.24300874/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/01/07/2024.01.04.24300874/F3) Figure 3. Most post-procedural complications occurred at higher percentages except for sepsis, in patients with coronary perforation than those without coronary perforation. ## Discussion This study examines the occurrence of coronary perforation and perforation-related mortality and complications in a cohort of adults aged 30 and older from a large inpatients database in 2016-2020. Coronary perforation occurred in 0.12% of patients who underwent PCI. However, despite this low percentage, individuals who experienced a coronary perforation had a significantly higher death rate (12.97%) than individuals who did not (2.57%) (Odds Ratio [OR], 5.64; CI, –6.37; p<0.001). Furthermore, the rate of perforation rate has been steadily over the 4 years study 0.11% in 2016 to 0.12% in 2020) without any reduction in the high mortality rates of over 10% over the years (10.76% in 2016 and 13.26% in 2020) suggesting lack of progress in prevention and treatment of coronary perforations over the years. Current preventative measures for coronary perforations include being careful with wire manipulation during PCI as well as avoiding ballon and stent oversizing 18. Restricting the indication of high-risk PCI to those who benefit the most may contribute to a reduction in the perforation rates in the future particularly in patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO)19. Treatment options for coronary perforations include the use of an immediate blocking balloon to prevent extravasation near the site of the PCI at low pressure for 5-10 minutes19. Following this, other recommendations include stopping glycoprotein IIb/IIa inhibitors and replacing heparin with protamine 20. In addition, more advanced perforations may indicate the need for covered stents to and coil embolization to prevent further leakage of blood and sealing of the site20,21. Despite the known treatment options when a coronary perforation occurs, mortality and complications remain high based on our data suggesting that we need to improve our approach to coronary perforation and treatment in order to reduce persistent high mortality seen in our database over the years. ## Conclusion Using a large national inpatient database, all-cause inpatient mortality in patients with coronary perforation was found to be very high (over 10%) with persistently high mortality and complications over the year studied. Our data suggest that prevention and treatment of coronary perforations have not improved over the years. Therefore, any effort to prevent perforation with better treatment for perforations can substantially reduce mortality in patients undergoing PCI. ## Limitation This study has some significant limitations, specifically that we could not separate the coronary perforations by the type of perforation. Having mortality and adverse cardiac event percentages specific to each of the three types of perforation would have led us to make a more precise conclusion on the relationship between PCI-related perforation category and mortality/adverse events. In addition, the study only uses data from open-source reported PCI-related perforations. This could underestimate the true occurrence of perforations and associated adverse events and mortality. Furthermore, we used ICD-10 coding with its inherent limitations. ## Data Availability NIS database publically available ## Conflict of Interest None ## Fundings None ## Footnotes * **All authors had full access to study data and an active role in writing manuscript** Mohammad Reza Movahed: Design the protocol and the study, writing, finding ICD codes, interpretation of data. Nishant Satapathy: Writing the manuscript and finding ICD codes Mehrtash Hashemzadeh: Performing statistical analysis and writing the manuscript. * **Conflict of interest:** None * **Funding:** None * Received January 4, 2024. * Revision received January 4, 2024. * Accepted January 7, 2024. * © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## Bibliography 1. 1.Ahmad M, Mehta P, Reddivari AKR, et al. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. [Updated 2023 Jun 5]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan-. Available from: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556123/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556123/) 2. 2.Khan SQ, Ludman PF. Percutaneous coronary intervention. Medicine. 2022/07/01/ 2022;50(7):437–444. doi:10.1016/j.mpmed.2022.04.008 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.mpmed.2022.04.008&link_type=DOI) 3. 3.Almarzooq ZI, Wadhera RK, Xu J, Yeh RW. Population Trends in Rates of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions, 2010 to 2017. JAMA Cardiology. 2021;6(10):1219–1220. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2021.2639 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamacardio.2021.2639&link_type=DOI) 4. 4.Grech ED. Percutaneous coronary intervention. I: History and development. BMJ. 2003;326(7398):1080–1082. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1080 [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzMjYvNzM5OC8xMDgwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDEvMDcvMjAyNC4wMS4wNC4yNDMwMDg3NC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 5. 5.Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi HM, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. Jan 6 2018;391(10115):31–40. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32714-9 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32714-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29103656&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F07%2F2024.01.04.24300874.atom) 6. 6.Mikhail P, Howden N, Monjur M, et al. Coronary perforation incidence, outcomes and temporal trends (COPIT): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Heart. 2022;9(2):e002076. doi:10.1136/openhrt-2022-002076 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Nzoib3BlbmhydCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiOS8yL2UwMDIwNzYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyNC8wMS8wNy8yMDI0LjAxLjA0LjI0MzAwODc0LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 7. 7.1. Lanzer P Godino C, Colombo A. Complications of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. In: Lanzer P, ed. PanVascular Medicine. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2013:1–30. 8. 8.Al-Lamee R, Ielasi A, Latib A, et al. Incidence, Predictors, Management, Immediate and Long-Term Outcomes Following Grade III Coronary Perforation. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2011/01/01/ 2011;4(1):87–95. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2010.08.026 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcin.2010.08.026&link_type=DOI) 9. 9.Shaukat A, Tajti P, Sandoval Y, et al. Incidence, predictors, management and outcomes of coronary perforations. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2019;93(1):48–56. doi:10.1002/ccd.27706 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ccd.27706&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F07%2F2024.01.04.24300874.atom) 10. 10.Parsh J, Seth M, Green J, et al. Coronary artery perforations after contemporary percutaneous coronary interventions: Evaluation of incidence, risk factors, outcomes, and predictors of mortality. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017;89(6):966–973. doi:10.1002/ccd.26917 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/ccd.26917&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F07%2F2024.01.04.24300874.atom) 11. 11.Feng S, Li M, Fei J, et al. Ten-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel or left main coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 2023/02/02 2023;18(1):54. doi:10.1186/s13019-023-02101-y [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s13019-023-02101-y&link_type=DOI) 12. 12.1. Kern MJ, 2. Sorajja P, 3. Lim MJ Lim MJ. 10 - Complications of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions. In: Kern MJ, Sorajja P, Lim MJ, eds. The Interventional Cardiac Catheterization Handbook (Fourth Edition). Elsevier; 2018:261–285. 13. 13.Ellis SG, Ajluni S, Arnold AZ, et al. Increased coronary perforation in the new device era. Incidence, classification, management, and outcome. Circulation. Dec 1994;90(6):2725–30. doi:10.1161/01.cir.90.6.2725 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNpcmN1bGF0aW9uYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjkwLzYvMjcyNSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzAxLzA3LzIwMjQuMDEuMDQuMjQzMDA4NzQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 14. 14.Danek BA, Karatasakis A, Tajti P, et al. Incidence, Treatment, and Outcomes of Coronary Perforation During Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. The American Journal of Cardiology. 2017/10/15/ 2017;120(8):1285–1292. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.010 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.07.010&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F07%2F2024.01.04.24300874.atom) 15. 15.Généreux P, Redfors B, Witzenbichler B, et al. Two-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions with drug-eluting stents. International Journal of Cardiology. 2017/03/15/ 2017;231:61–67. doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.12.150 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.12.150&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F07%2F2024.01.04.24300874.atom) 16. 16.Culler SD, Kugelmass AD, Brown PP, Reynolds MR, Simon AW. Trends in Coronary Revascularization Procedures Among Medicare Beneficiaries Between 2008 and 2012. Circulation. 2015;131(4):362–370. doi:doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.012485 [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTQ6ImNpcmN1bGF0aW9uYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjEzMS80LzM2MiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzAxLzA3LzIwMjQuMDEuMDQuMjQzMDA4NzQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 17. 17.Gaudino M, Hameed I, Farkouh ME, et al. Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality in Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Percutaneous Interventions With Coronary Bypass Surgery: A Metaanalysis. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2020;180(12):1638–1646. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4748 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4748&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33044497&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F01%2F07%2F2024.01.04.24300874.atom) 18. 18.Chin Yong A, Wei Chieh JT. Coronary Perforation Complicating Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - A Case Illustration and Review. ASEAN Heart J. 2013;21(2):3. doi:10.7603/s40602-013-0002-9 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7603/s40602-013-0002-9&link_type=DOI) 19. 19.Abdalwahab A, Farag M, Brilakis ES, Galassi AR, Egred M. Management of Coronary Artery Perforation. Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. 2021/05/01/ 2021;26:55–60. doi:10.1016/j.carrev.2020.11.013 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.carrev.2020.11.013&link_type=DOI) 20. 20.Piraino D, Dendramis G, Buccheri D, et al. Coronary artery perforation: How to treat it? Cor et Vasa. 2015/10/01/ 2015;57(5):e334–e340. doi:10.1016/j.crvasa.2015.05.011 [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.crvasa.2015.05.011&link_type=DOI) 21. 21.Nagalli S, Hajouli S. Coronary Artery Perforation. [Updated 2023 Jul 3]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan-. Available from: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554476/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554476/)