Catheter-induced ostial coronary artery dissection during percutaneous coronary intervention assessed by intravascular ultrasound

Abstract Background Catheter-induced ostial coronary artery dissection is one of the possible complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), sometimes resulting in serious consequences. The incidence of catheter-induced ostial coronary artery dissection has been assessed by coronary angiography, but rarely by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Prognosis of ostial coronary artery dissection is also unclear. Purpose To determine the incidence and prognosis of catheter-induced ostial coronary artery dissection during PCI by IVUS assessment. Methods The study population consisted of 1468 consecutive patients undergoing PCI at our institution between January 2019 and March 2020. Patients who had previously received a stent in the ostial coronary artery to be treated and patients who were scheduled to receive a stent in the ostial coronary artery during the procedure were excluded. The analysis was performed on 246 patients undergoing IVUS assessment of the ostial coronary artery at the end of the procedure. The 1-year cumulative rates of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and any revascularization procedure were compared between patients with and without ostial coronary artery dissection (dissection and nondissection groups). Results Ostial coronary artery dissection was detected by coronary angiography in 13 patients (5.2%) and by IVUS in 49 patients (19.9%). There were no significant differences between the dissection and nondissection groups (49 patients vs. 197 patients) in the percentage of the treated coronary artery (right coronary artery: 34.7% vs. 36.0%, p = 0.86), acute coronary syndrome (30.6% vs. 41.6%, p = 0.15), or the use of a backup catheter (32.7% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.09). The dissection group had more moderate to severe calcified lesions than the nondissection group (42.9% vs. 22.3%, p<0.01). There were no significant differences between the dissection and nondissection groups in the 1-year cumulative incidence of all-cause death (6.1% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.88), nonfatal infarction (6.1% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.54), or any revascularization procedure (10.2% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.72). Eight patients (16%) in the dissection group received additional intervention for ostial coronary artery dissection and had a significantly higher rate of dissection detected by coronary angiography than conservatively treated patients (75.0% vs. 17.1%, p<0.01). In addition, no conservatively treated patients received additional intervention for worsening dissection within one year of the index procedure. Conclusion IVUS may be more useful than coronary angiography in detecting ostial coronary artery dissection. With proper management, ostial coronary artery dissection may not lead to worse 1-year outcomes, and many dissections detected by IVUS may not require additional intervention.