Significance of chest pain during percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

Early Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Chest Pain: A Nationwide Survey on Interventional Cardiologists' Perspective

BACKGROUND

Early post-percutaneous coronary intervention chest pain (EPPCP) appears to be a common clinical phenomenon. EPPCP has not been fully explained or studied in the literature despite the abundance of clinical trials on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The objective of this questionnaire-based survey is to assess the current perception of EPPCP among practicing interventional cardiologists nationwide.

METHODS

A survey questionnaire was designed utilizing the Survey Monkey tool to address the perceptions and current practices regarding key aspects of EPPCP among interventional cardiologists. The survey was sent to the interventional cardiologists via email.

RESULTS

The survey questionnaire regarding EPPCP was provided to 2615 practicing interventional cardiologists and resulted in 623 total survey responses, with 503 of those respondents completing all eight survey questions. A total of 50.2% of the interventional cardiologists perceive that the incidence of EPPCP is 5-10%, and 57.5% consider that repeat angiography or PCI is rarely needed (1 in 1000 cases). A total of 47.1% of the participants think that EPPCP is due to transient microvascular dysfunction, while 39% perceive it as a different entity requiring a different approach. When asked about developing a standardized labeling for the phenomenon of EPPCP, 34.8% of responders indicated that they believe EPPCP should be labeled as a benign form of chest pain/angina, and 28% preferred to describe EPPCP in non-standardized terms. Among interventional cardiologists, 80% thought that the treatment of this entity is a combination of reassurance and vasodilators and, without ischemic ECG changes, medical management is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

A total of 72% of interventional cardiologists in our survey preferred to label EPPCP as standard nomenclature to facilitate communication between healthcare providers, patients and families in a consistent way. There is a diversity of opinion regarding EPPCP, no standard nomenclature, and no guideline to standardize practice. Further large-scale prospective studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiological mechanisms, optimal management strategies, prognostic implications, and clinical reporting of EPPCP.

Chest pain after coronary interventional procedures. Incidence and pathophysiology

Chest pain following successful percutaneous coronary interventions is a common problem. Although the development of chest pain after coronary interventions may be of benign character, it is disturbing to patients, relatives and hospital staff. Such pain may be indicative of acute coronary artery closure, coronary artery spasm or myocardial infarction, but may also simply reflect local coronary artery trauma. The distinction between these causes of chest pain is crucial in selecting optimal care. Management of these patients may involve repeat coronary angiography and additional intervention. Commonly, repeat coronary angiography following percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in patients with chest pain demonstrates widely patent lesion sites suggesting that the pain was due to coronary artery spasm, coronary arterial wall stretching or was of non-cardiac origin. As reported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute PTCA Registry, 4.6% of patients after angioplasty have coronary occlusions, 4.8% suffer a myocardial infarction, and 4.2% have coronary spasm. The frequency of chest pain after new device coronary interventions (atherectomy and stenting) seems to be even higher. However, only the minority of patients with post-procedural chest pain have indeed an ischemic event. Therefore, the vast majority of patients have recurrent chest pain without any signs of ischemia. There is some evidence that non-ischemic chest pain after coronary interventions is more common after stent implantation as compared to PTCA (41% vs. 12%). This may be due to the continuous stretching of the arterial wall by the stent as the elastic recoil occurring after PTCA is minimized. In conclusion, chest pain after coronary interventional procedures may potentially be hazardous when due to myocardial ischemia. However, especially after coronary stent placement, cardiologists must consider "stretch pain" due to the overdilation and stretching of the artery caused by the stent in the differential diagnosis. Clinically, it is, therefore, important to recognize that in addition to ischemia-related chest pain other types of chest pain do exist with cardiac origin.

Acute infarction during triple-vessel coronary angioplasty due to acute occlusion of a nonattempted vessel

During angioplasty of the left coronary artery, an acute thrombotic occlusion of the right coronary artery occurred at the site of a borderline stenosis. The source of the unexplained chest pain at the end of the procedure was identified but the next day when inferior Q-waves appeared. It was documented by repeat angiography. The coronary angiogram of the right coronary artery preceding the angioplasty of the left coronary artery is likely to have triggered the occlusion. Chest pain during or after angioplasty without apparent cause in the dilated artery must prompt a contrast medium injection into the nonattempted artery, particularly if the latter had undergone a diagnostic study at the beginning of the procedure.