Coronary sinus anatomical features: Description and procedural implications during coronary sinus Reducer implantation

• Published in: Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2021-06, Vol.97 (7), p.E929-E935
• Main Authors: Wilgenhof, Adriaan, Zivelonghi, Carlo, Verheye, Stefan, Vermeersch, Paul, Scott, Benjamin, Convens, Carl, Timmers, Leo, Leenders, Geert, Kuijk, Jan Peter Van, Stella, Pieter, Agostoni, Pierfrancesco
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anatomy; Angina; Catheters; chronic coronary syndrome; coronary sinus reducer; interventional cardiology
• ISSN: 1522-1946; 1522-726X
• DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29398

Objectives We hypothesized that some coronary sinus (CS) anatomies allow a more straightforward CS Reducer (CSR) implantation. Background Recent decades have seen a rise in patients with chronic angina. When complete revascularization and maximal medical therapy fail to reduce symptoms, CSR has become a new therapeutic option. Methods We identified a classical C‐shape—a near horizontal course of the proximal portion of a circular CS—in a retrospective analysis of 47 CSR implantations and compared the procedural time, fluoroscopic time, contrast use, presence of valves or bifurcations and procedural complications with the non‐C‐shape CS anatomy. Results We found a significant difference in procedural (20.0 [19.0–24.7] min vs. 24.5 [20.7–51.0] min; p = .028 and fluoroscopic time (9.5 [7.5–14.5] min vs. 11.0 [7.9–30.0] min; p = .016). There was no significant difference in contrast use. The presence of bifurcations or valves along the CS course did not influence the procedural timings. Conclusion This study is the first systematic evaluation of CS anatomy and its procedural implications. We identified a favorable C‐shape anatomy which allows for a more straightforward implantation. Operators should be aware of the different implications of CS anatomy, their influence on guiding catheter stability and overall procedure complexity.