Coronary Drug-Eluting Stent Infection Complicated by Coronary Artery Aneurysm and Purulent Pericarditis: Complete Resolution Without Surgery

Coronary Stent Infection: A Systematic Review of Literature

Coronary stent infection is a rare yet serious complication of coronary artery stenting, with potentially significant morbidity and mortality. This systematic review aimed to comprehensively assess the available evidence on the diagnosis, management, and outcomes of coronary stent infection. A comprehensive search of electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, was conducted from inception until March 2023, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 1 case series and 41 case reports, covering a cumulative sample size of 44 patients, were included in the analysis. The predominant stent types were drug-eluting stents in 22 studies, bare-metal stents in 3 studies, and a combination of drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents in 4 studies. Staphylococcus aureus was the predominant identified organism in microbiological profiles. Primary outcomes, including mortality, morbidity, and recurrence rates, were evaluated. The aggregate mortality rate across studies was 18%, underscoring the severity of coronary stent infections. Morbidity ranged from 3% to 60%, with a spectrum of complications such as sepsis, heart failure, and embolic events. Recurrence rates varied from 3% to 33%, emphasizing the importance of effective management. Treatment strategies encompassed antibiotics alone, antibiotics with stent removal, and antibiotics with stent retention, with the duration of antibiotic therapy ranging from 2 weeks to 12 months. The optimal management strategy remains uncertain due to limited high-quality evidence. Early diagnosis and treatment were emphasized as critical factors in improving outcomes. Prophylactic antibiotics during stenting procedures and increased awareness among healthcare providers were suggested as preventive measures.

Drug-Coated Balloon vs. Stent for de novo Non-small Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) has been an attractive option in de novo vessels. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCB vs. stent for treating de novo lesions in non-small vessels.

Methods: Studies in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched (from their commencement to March 2021). This meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.3.

Results: A total of 3 random controlled trials (RCTs) with 255 patients and 2 observational studies (OS) with 265 patients were included in this meta-analysis following our inclusion criteria. It could be observed that DCB presented no significant difference in cardiac death (CD) (RR 0.33, 95% CI [0.01, 8.29], p = 0.50 in OS), myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 0.49, 95% CI [0.09, 2.50], p = 0.39 in RCT), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (RR 0.64, 95% CI [0.19, 2.18], p = 0.47 in RCT) (RR 1.72, 95% CI [0.56, 5.26], p = 0.34 in OS), and late lumen loss (LLL) (SMD −0.48, 95% CI [−1.32, 0.36], p = 0.26 in RCT) for de novo non-small coronary artery disease (CAD) compared with stents, whereas minimal lumen diameter (MLD) including MLD1 (SMD −0.67, 95% CI [−0.92 −0.42], p < 0.00001 in RCT) and MLD2 (SMD −0.36, 95% CI [−0.61 −0.11], p = 0.004 in RCT) was smaller in DCB group.

Conclusion: This systematic review showed that DCB might provide a promising way on de novo non-small coronary artery disease compared with stents. However, more RCTs are still needed to further prove the benefits of the DCB strategy.

Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails.

Coronary stent infection: Are patients amenable to surgical treatment? A systematic review and narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVE

Coronary stent infection is a fearsome complication with high mortality rate. Since antibiotics may have only partial efficacy, invasive surgery may be needed. We present a systematic review about outcomes achieved by surgical versus medical treatment in this scenario.

METHODS

A literature search through Medline and Google Scholar was performed over a 30-years period according to PRISMA guidelines. Demographics, clinical data, imaging findings and treatment modalities were collected. Outcomes were analysed according to treatment.

RESULTS

Among 1727 articles identified, after duplicate removal the title/abstract screening excluded 821 articles. After full-text screening, 31 studies were included totalling 34 patients (n 28, 82.4% male, mean age 61.7 SD +/- 10 years old). The majority of infection were sustained by S. Aureus (n 28, 82.4%), occurred within one month (median 7 days, range 1-1440) from stenting and mostly over drug-eluting stents (n21, 61.8%). The majority of patients (n30, 88.2%) underwent antibiotics at first: 12 patients (35.3%) didn't undergo additional treatment because they died, were unfit or refused major surgery or responded favorably to medical treatment; surgery was scheduled in a total of 20 patients (58.8%), as an emergent approach (n2) or after failure of antibiotics (n18). More than half of patients medically treated died (n6/11, 54.5%) versus 35% (n7/20) in surgery group.

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary stent infections are associated with high morbi-mortality rate. Medical treatment may be the only possible approach in extremely fragile patients, however timely surgical referral is the only definitive treatment, and it is recommended whenever possible.