Intravascular Lithotripsy in Calcified Coronary Lesions: A Single-Center Experience in "Real-World" Patients.
balloon angioplasty
calcium
coronary lesions
drug-eluting stents
lithotripsy
Journal
Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine
ISSN: 2297-055X
Titre abrégé: Front Cardiovasc Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101653388
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
04
12
2021
accepted:
05
01
2022
entrez:
10
3
2022
pubmed:
11
3
2022
medline:
11
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aims to describe the outcome of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) when used with different indications and to assess the short- and long-term outcomes of IVL-facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Intravascular lithotripsy can improve the results of PCI of calcified coronary lesions with a low rate of periprocedural complications. A total of 105 consecutive patients with 110 calcified lesions underwent IVL. A total of 87 Angiographic success was achieved in 84.6% of lesions. Early MACEs were periprocedural MI only, ranging from 6.7 to 20% depending on MI definition. The flow-limiting dissections rate was 2.7%. A total of five (4.5%) IVL balloons ruptured during treatment with subsequent vessel perforation in 1 case. MACEs at 12 months were 13.3%, with TLR occurring in 8 lesions (12% primary IVL, 0% secondary IVL, 0% bailout IVL, and 21.7% IVL for ISR, Treatment of calcified coronary lesions with IVL in a "real-world" setting can be performed with high success, low rate of procedural complications, and an acceptable MACEs rate. Target lesion failure may be more frequent when IVL is performed for the treatment of ISR due to calcium-mediated stent under expansion.
Sections du résumé
Objectives
UNASSIGNED
This study aims to describe the outcome of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) when used with different indications and to assess the short- and long-term outcomes of IVL-facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Background
UNASSIGNED
Intravascular lithotripsy can improve the results of PCI of calcified coronary lesions with a low rate of periprocedural complications.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A total of 105 consecutive patients with 110 calcified lesions underwent IVL. A total of 87
Results
UNASSIGNED
Angiographic success was achieved in 84.6% of lesions. Early MACEs were periprocedural MI only, ranging from 6.7 to 20% depending on MI definition. The flow-limiting dissections rate was 2.7%. A total of five (4.5%) IVL balloons ruptured during treatment with subsequent vessel perforation in 1 case. MACEs at 12 months were 13.3%, with TLR occurring in 8 lesions (12% primary IVL, 0% secondary IVL, 0% bailout IVL, and 21.7% IVL for ISR,
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Treatment of calcified coronary lesions with IVL in a "real-world" setting can be performed with high success, low rate of procedural complications, and an acceptable MACEs rate. Target lesion failure may be more frequent when IVL is performed for the treatment of ISR due to calcium-mediated stent under expansion.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35265684
doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.829117
pmc: PMC8900981
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
829117Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Mastrangelo, Monizzi, Galli, Grancini, Ferrari, Olivares, Chiesa, Calligaris, Fabbiocchi, Montorsi and Bartorelli.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Oct;12(10):e008434
pubmed: 31553205
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Aug 1;98(2):225-235
pubmed: 32936532
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2016 Sep;17(9):665-72
pubmed: 25575276
Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Jul 07;57(7):
pubmed: 34356975
Eur Heart J. 2018 Jan 14;39(3):213-260
pubmed: 28886622
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Mar 15;231:61-67
pubmed: 28040289
J Invasive Cardiol. 2021 Jun;33(6):E417-E424
pubmed: 33893792
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Jan 1;83(1):27-36
pubmed: 23894025
Am Heart J. 2019 Jul;213:105-111
pubmed: 31132582
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Jan;6(1):10-9
pubmed: 23266232
Circulation. 1988 Aug;78(2):486-502
pubmed: 2969312
EuroIntervention. 2016 Dec 20;12(12):1448-1456
pubmed: 27998836
Circulation. 2017 Sep 12;136(11):1007-1021
pubmed: 28720725
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 May 1;75(6):919-27
pubmed: 20432398
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Dec;21(12):1555-1559
pubmed: 32580881
EuroIntervention. 2017 Aug 25;13(6):696-705
pubmed: 28844031
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013 Feb;81(2):285-91
pubmed: 22431433
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Sep;21(9):1099-1105
pubmed: 32471713
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Oct 30;72(18):2231-2264
pubmed: 30153967
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Dec 1;76(22):2635-2646
pubmed: 33069849
Cardiovasc Ther. 2011 Jun;29(3):190-8
pubmed: 20406239
Circulation. 2004 Mar 9;109(9):1085-8
pubmed: 14993129
Circ J. 2018 Jan 25;82(2):369-375
pubmed: 28931790
Clin Res Cardiol. 2021 Feb;110(2):228-236
pubmed: 32948882
Am J Cardiol. 2013 Dec 1;112(11):1730-7
pubmed: 24012035
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Nov;12(11):e008154
pubmed: 31707803
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Dec;13(12):e008686
pubmed: 33233934
Circulation. 2018 Jun 12;137(24):2635-2650
pubmed: 29891620