Intravascular Lithotripsy versus Rotational Atherectomy in Coronary Chronic Total Occlusions: Analysis from the PROGRESS-CTO registry.
Chronic total occlusion
calcium modification
intravascular lithotripsy
percutaneous coronary intervention
rotational atherectomy
Journal
The American journal of cardiology
ISSN: 1879-1913
Titre abrégé: Am J Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0207277
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Oct 2024
23 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
09
09
2024
revised:
11
10
2024
accepted:
14
10
2024
medline:
26
10
2024
pubmed:
26
10
2024
entrez:
25
10
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
There is limited comparative data on the use of plaque modification devices during chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) with rotational atherectomy (RA) for lesion preparation in patients who underwent CTO PCI across 50 US and non-US centers from 2019 to 2024. Among 15,690 patients who underwent CTO PCI during the study period, 436 (2.78%) underwent IVL and 381 (2.45%) RA. Patients treated with IVL had more comorbidities and more complex CTO lesions. Antegrade wiring was the most commonly used initial and successful crossing strategy for lesions treated with both IVL and RA, although the retrograde approach was more frequently employed in IVL cases. Procedure and fluoroscopy times, as well as air kerma radiation doses and contrast volumes, were higher in patients treated with RA compared with IVL. There were no significant differences between the groups in technical success (97.2% vs. 95.3%, p=0.20), procedural success (94.7% vs. 91.8%, p=0.14), and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (3.0 % vs. 4.2%, p=0.47). However, coronary perforations were more frequent in patients undergoing RA (9.5% vs. 3.2%, p<0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that IVL compared with RA was not independently associated with technical success, procedural success, or in-hospital MACE. In patients undergoing CTO PCI, IVL is associated with similar in-hospital MACE, technical success, and procedural success, but lower incidence of coronary perforation, compared with RA.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is limited comparative data on the use of plaque modification devices during chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
METHODS
METHODS
We compared intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) with rotational atherectomy (RA) for lesion preparation in patients who underwent CTO PCI across 50 US and non-US centers from 2019 to 2024.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among 15,690 patients who underwent CTO PCI during the study period, 436 (2.78%) underwent IVL and 381 (2.45%) RA. Patients treated with IVL had more comorbidities and more complex CTO lesions. Antegrade wiring was the most commonly used initial and successful crossing strategy for lesions treated with both IVL and RA, although the retrograde approach was more frequently employed in IVL cases. Procedure and fluoroscopy times, as well as air kerma radiation doses and contrast volumes, were higher in patients treated with RA compared with IVL. There were no significant differences between the groups in technical success (97.2% vs. 95.3%, p=0.20), procedural success (94.7% vs. 91.8%, p=0.14), and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (3.0 % vs. 4.2%, p=0.47). However, coronary perforations were more frequent in patients undergoing RA (9.5% vs. 3.2%, p<0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that IVL compared with RA was not independently associated with technical success, procedural success, or in-hospital MACE.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In patients undergoing CTO PCI, IVL is associated with similar in-hospital MACE, technical success, and procedural success, but lower incidence of coronary perforation, compared with RA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39454696
pii: S0002-9149(24)00745-8
doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.10.018
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Brilakis reports administrative support was provided by Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation. Brilakis reports a relationship with Abbott Vascular Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Jaffer reports a relationship with Shockwave Medical Inc that includes: funding grants. Azzalini reports a relationship with Shockwave Medical Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Dr. Jaffer: –sponsored research: Canon, Siemens, Shockwave, Teleflex, Boston Scientific, HeartFlow, Neovasc; consultant/speakers fees: Magenta Medical, Philips, Biotronik, Mercator, Terumo, Abiomed, Shockwave, DurVena, Intravascular Imaging Inc., Medtronic, FastWave; Equity interest: Intravascular Imaging Inc, DurVena, FastWave. Massachusetts General Hospital – licensing arrangements: Terumo, Canon, SpectraWAVE, for which FAJ has the right to receive royalties. Dr. Azzalini received consulting fees from Teleflex, Abiomed, GE Healthcare, Reflow Medical, Shockwave, and Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.; received a research grant by Abiomed; serves on the advisory board of Abiomed and GE Healthcare; and owns equity in Reflow Medical. Dr. Davies: speaking honoraria from Abiomed, Asahi Intec, Boston Sci, Medtronic, Shockwave and Teleflex. Also serves on advisory boards for Abiomed, Avinger, Boston Sci, Medtronic, Rampart and Shockwave. Dr. Sandoval: consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Diagnostics, Roche Diagnostics, Zoll, Philips. JACC Advances associate editor. Patent 20210401347. Dr. Brilakis: consulting/speaker honoraria from Abbott Vascular, American Heart Association (associate editor Circulation), Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Innovations Foundation (Board of Directors), CSI, Elsevier, GE Healthcare, IMDS, Medtronic, and Teleflex; research support: Boston Scientific, GE Healthcare; owner, Hippocrates LLC; shareholder: MHI Ventures, Cleerly Health, Stallion Medical. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.