Search

Cutting balloon angioplasty (CBA) is one of the adept ways of treating “in-stent restenosis.” Various complications related to cutting balloon angioplasty have been reported including arterial rupture, delayed perforation and fracture of microsurgical blades. Here we report a very unusual and inadvertent extraction of a stent previously deployed in the ramus intermedius coronary branch by a cutting balloon catheter. This required repeat stenting of the same site for an underlying dissection. Even though stent extraction is a rare complication it can be serious due to dissection, perforation, and closure of the artery. Physicians performing coronary artery interventions would need to be aware of this rare and serious complication especially if any difficulty is encountered while withdrawing the cutting balloon. Therefore, after removal, cutting balloon should be examined thoroughly for possible stent dislodgment or extraction when used for “in-stent restenosis.”

ObjectivesThe aim of our study was to evaluate the volume-outcome relationship in a large, quality-controlled, contemporary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) database.BackgroundWhether the relationship between physician volume of PCI and outcomes still exists in the era of coronary stents is unclear.MethodsData on 18,504 consecutive PCIs performed by 165 operators in calendar year 2002 were prospectively collected in a regional consortium. Operators' volume was divided into quintiles (1 to 33, 34 to 89, 90 to 139, 140 to 206, and 207 to 582 procedures/year). The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including death, coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke or transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, and repeat PCI at the same site during the index hospital stay.ResultsThe unadjusted MACE rate was significantly higher in quintiles one and two of operator volume when compared with quintile five (7.38% and 6.13% vs. 4.15%, p = 0.002 and p = 0.0001, respectively). A similar trend was observed for in-hospital death. After adjustment for comorbidities, patients treated by low volume operators had a 63% increased odds of MACE (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29 to 2.06, p < 0.0001 for quintile [Q]1; adjusted OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.90, p < 0.0001 for Q2 vs. Q5), but not of in-hospital death. Overall, high volume operators had better outcomes than low volume operators in low-risk and high-risk patients.ConclusionsAlthough the relationship between operator volume and in-hospital mortality is no longer significant, the relationship between volume and any adverse outcome is still present. Technological advancements have not yet completely offset the influence of procedural volume on proficiency of PCIs.