Multicenter retrospective study evaluates intravascular lithotripsy's effectiveness in stent underexpansion, suggesting safety but inferior results compared to upfront IVL.
Stent underexpansion from severe calcification leads to adverse outcomes. While intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is effective pre-stenting, its role in treating stent underexpansion remains unclear. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with IVL from January 2019 to 2025. Patients were categorized into two groups based on IVL use: the upfront group (IVL before stent placement) and the intrastent group (IVL for treating stent underexpansion). The outcomes included a quantitative flow ratio-based trans-stent gradient (QFR-TSG) > 0 post-PCI, target vessel failure, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Statistical analyses employed inverse probability of treatment weighting with logistic and Cox regression models and Kaplan-Meier survival curves. A total of 166 consecutive patients were included, with 79 (47.6%) in the intrastent IVL group and 87 (52.4%) in the upfront IVL group. Compared to the upfront IVL group, patients treated with intrastent IVL had a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (49.4% vs. 19.5%, p < 0.001). QFR-TSG > 0 was significantly more frequent in the intrastent IVL group (77.2% vs. 60.9%, p = 0.036). After IPTW adjustment, intrastent IVL was not significantly associated with increased MACE risk (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.55-2.61; p = 0.240). Kaplan-Meier analysis similarly showed no difference in MACE-free survival between groups over a mean follow-up of 3.7 years (log-rank p = 0.299). Intrastent IVL yields inferior functional results versus upfront IVL but appears safe and may serve as a useful rescue option for stent underexpansion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Farina et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: