Key result
Intravascular lithotripsy linked to ~91% higher 30-day MACE risk versus rotational atherectomy.
Why the study?
The study sought to compare real-world clinical outcomes of patients receiving intravascular lithotripsy versus rotational atherectomy for heavily calcified coronary lesions.
Does intravascular lithotripsy improve in-hospital and 30-day MACE compared to rotational atherectomy in patients with heavily calcified coronary lesions?
Cohort (n=324)
No
Does intravascular lithotripsy improve in-hospital and 30-day MACE compared to rotational atherectomy in patients with heavily calcified coronary lesions?
Effect estimate: OR 1.910 (95% CI 0.774-4.718)
Absolute Event Rate: 17% vs 7.4%
p-value: p=0.035
In a real-world Asian cohort with heavily calcified coronary lesions, IVL was used in higher-risk patients than RA, but propensity-adjusted analysis showed no significant difference in 30-day MACE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
IVL linked to higher unadjusted 30-day MACE in higher-risk patients; leaves open whether adjusted equivalence holds in randomized trials.
Wong et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Heavily calcified coronary lesions (n=324). Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) vs. Rotational atherectomy (RA) was evaluated on 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR 1.910, 95% CI 0.774-4.718, p=0.035). Intravascular lithotripsy was associated with a higher rate of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events compared to rotational atherectomy (17.0% vs 7.4%, p=0.035) in a high-risk, real-world cohort.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: