PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 24, 2026Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology0 citations

Protamine for Coronary Perforation in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

View Full Paper
SKSant KumarSTSudhir ThotakuraKKKathleen E. Kearney

Key Points

  • The aim is to evaluate the safety and long-term outcomes of protamine during coronary perforation in CTO PCI procedures.
  • Retrospective analysis of CTO PCI cases from January 2019 to December 2023
  • Stratification of patients based on protamine administration during perforation
  • Use of inverse probability of treatment weighting and doubly robust logistic regression for adjustment
  • Assessment of clinical endpoints including MI, cardiac tamponade, and death
  • Coronary perforation occurred in 199 out of 1,503 CTO PCI cases (13.2%)
  • Protamine was administered in 108 cases (54.3%), showing increased use over time
  • Similar in-hospital outcomes were observed between protamine and non-protamine groups
  • At one year, all-cause death rates were comparable (7.4% vs. 6.6%)

Abstract

Protamine is frequently used to reverse unfractionated heparin, yet contemporary data on its safety and long-term outcomes in chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI)–related perforation are limited. We retrospectively analyzed all CTO PCI procedures performed at a single center between January 2019 and December 2023. Patients who experienced coronary perforation were stratified by protamine administration. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and doubly robust logistic regression were used to adjust for baseline and procedural differences. Clinical endpoints included protamine-related reactions, cardiac tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis, periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI), acute stent thrombosis, in-hospital all-cause death, and 1-year all-cause death. Among 1,503 CTO PCI cases, perforation occurred in 199 patients (13.2%); 108 (54.3%) received protamine, and 91 (45.7%) did not. Protamine use increased over time (p-for-trend 0.999), pericardiocentesis (8.3% vs. 9.9%; p=0.806), and periprocedural MI (0.9% vs. 2.2%; p=0.594). IPTW-adjusted analyses yielded similar results. No acute stent thrombosis or protamine reactions occurred. Doubly robust analysis showed no association between protamine use and in-hospital death (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.05–13.86; p=0.917), pericardiocentesis (aOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.10–1.98; p=0.294), or either outcome (aOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.21–2.85; p=0.390). At 1 year, all-cause death remained similar (7.4% vs. 6.6%; p>0.999), with no association on adjusted analysis (aOR 0.63, 95% CI 0.12–3.40; p=0.591). Protamine administration for CTO PCI–related perforation appears safe, without evidence of additional clinical benefit compared with no protamine use.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kumar et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/697460cebb9d90c67120aae2https://doi.org/10.1097/fjc.0000000000001791
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper