Key result
Shockwave intravascular lithotripsy shows similar six-month MACE to rotational atherectomy for calcified left main disease.
Why the study?
Calcified unprotected LM disease is a high-risk subset for PCI, but data on the effectiveness of RA in LM disease remain scarce, and novel S-IVL has recently been introduced for calcified plaque modification.
Does intravascular lithotripsy compared to rotational atherectomy improve MACE in patients undergoing PCI for calcified unprotected left main disease?
Cohort (n=44)
Does intravascular lithotripsy compared to rotational atherectomy improve MACE in patients undergoing PCI for calcified unprotected left main disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 13.3% vs 17.2%
Intravascular lithotripsy and rotational atherectomy demonstrated comparable short-term safety and efficacy for lesion preparation in calcified unprotected left main disease.
S-IVL associated with similar MACE to RA in small LM cohort; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: The unprotected calcified Left Main disease represents a high-risk subset for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and it is associated with a higher number of periprocedural complications and an increased rate of in-stent thrombosis and restenosis. Adequate lesion preparation plays a crucial role in achieving a favorable PCI outcome. Rotational Atherectomy (RA) is a well-established plaque-modifying method; nevertheless, the data regarding the effectiveness of RA in LM diseases is scarce. Recently, the novel ShockWave-Intravascular-Lithotripsy(S-IVL) device has been introduced to the PCI armamentarium in order to modify the calcified plaque. METHODS: We performed a retrospective evaluation of 44 consecutive subjects who underwent the LM-PCI, and who were supported by either the RA or S-IVL. RESULTS: The Rota group consisted of 29 patients with a mean syntax score of 28.0 ± 7.5. The S-IVL group was composed of 15 subjects with a syntax score of 23.3 ± 13.0 There were no statistical differences regarding MACE between the RA and Shockwave arms of the in-hospital group (10.3% vs. 6.7%), or in the six month (17.2% vs. 13.3%) follow-up group. CONCLUSIONS: RA and S-IVL could be safe and effective therapeutic strategies for calcified LM disease. Further studies with a higher number of participants and longer follow-up times are warranted to establish the potential benefits of RA and S-IVL for the management of LM stenosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rola et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Calcified unprotected Left Main disease (n=44). ShockWave-Intravascular-Lithotripsy (S-IVL) vs. Rotational Atherectomy (RA) was evaluated on MACE at six months. ShockWave-Intravascular-Lithotripsy resulted in similar six-month MACE rates compared to rotational atherectomy for calcified left main disease (13.3% vs 17.2%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: