Why the study?
The impact of different lesion preparation techniques for severely calcified coronary bifurcation lesions was poorly investigated.
Does lesion preparation with scoring/cutting balloons compared to rotational atherectomy increase side branch compromise in severely calcified coronary bifurcations?
Does lesion preparation with scoring/cutting balloons compared to rotational atherectomy increase side branch compromise in severely calcified coronary bifurcations?
In severely calcified coronary bifurcations, lesion preparation with rotational atherectomy results in significantly less side branch compromise and fewer large dissections compared to scoring/cutting balloons.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
SCB may increase side branch compromise versus RA in calcified bifurcations; hypothesis-generating, leaves optimal preparation open.
Objectives. To analyze the impact of different techniques of lesion preparation of severely calcified coronary bifurcation lesions. Background. The impact of different techniques of lesion preparation of severely calcified coronary bifurcation lesions is poorly investigated. Methods. We performed an as-treated analysis on 47 calcified bifurcation lesions treated with scoring/cutting balloons (SCB) and 68 lesions treated with rotational atherectomy (RA) in the PREPARE-CALC trial. Compromised side branch (SB) as assessed in the final angiogram was the primary outcome measure and was defined as any significant stenosis, dissection, or thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow <3. Results. True bifurcation lesions were present in 49% vs. 43% of cases in the SCB and RA groups, respectively. After stent implantation, SB balloon dilatation was necessary in around one-third of cases (36% vs. 38%; <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"> <a:mi>p</a:mi> <a:mo>=</a:mo> <a:mn>0.82</a:mn> </a:math> ), and a two-stent technique was performed in 21.3% vs. 25% ( <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"> <c:mi>p</c:mi> <c:mo>=</c:mo> <c:mn>0.75</c:mn> </c:math> ). At the end of the procedure, the SB remained compromised in 15 lesions (32%) in the SCB group and 5 lesions (7%) in the RA group ( <e:math xmlns:e="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"> <e:mi>p</e:mi> <e:mo>=</e:mo> <e:mn>0.001</e:mn> </e:math> ). Large coronary dissections were more frequently observed in the SCB group (13% vs. 2%; <g:math xmlns:g="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"> <g:mi>p</g:mi> <g:mo>=</g:mo> <g:mn>0.02</g:mn> </g:math> ). Postprocedural levels of cardiac biomarkers were significantly higher in patients with a compromised SB at the end of the procedure. Conclusions. In the PREPARE-CALC trial, side branch compromise was more frequently observed after lesion preparation with SCB as compared with RA. Consequently, in calcified bifurcation lesions, an upfront debulking with an RA-based strategy might optimize the result in the side branch.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Allali et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: