Why the study?
Lithotripsy is known to cause cardiac arrhythmias during renal stone treatment, but the risk of arrhythmia with intravascular lithotripsy in coronary artery disease is currently unknown.
Shockwave Intravascular Lithotripsy in the proximal right coronary artery can cause pacing capture and de novo atrial fibrillation, suggesting a potential need for ECG gating.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports caution for capture-induced AF in proximal RCA IVL; leaves open incidence and whether ECG gating can mitigate risk.
BACKGROUND: has been recently translated to the treatment of coronary artery disease with a long history of use for ureteric stones where it has been observed to have caused cardiac arrhythmias. The risk of arrhythmia with the use of this method in coronary artery disease is currently unknown. CASE SUMMARY: A 72-year-old man undergoing planned percutaneous intervention to a heavily calcified proximal right coronary artery (RCA) lesion using S-IVL developed pacing capture from the device and subsequently new atrial fibrillation (AF) during the procedure. The technique resulted in successful treatment of the coronary lesion and he spontaneously reverted within an hour of the procedure before discharge. DISCUSSION: We postulate the pulsed energy delivered to break apart the calcium has the capacity to cause depolarization, and therefore, affect cardiac rhythm as seen in treatment of renal stones in the past before the introduction of routine electrocardiogram (ECG) gating. In this case, the proximity of the RCA to the right atrium caused short circuiting and development of AF in a susceptible patient. Both the pacing implications and the risk of arrhythmia needs to be investigated further and the potential for ECG gating of the pulsed energy to mitigate this effect needs to be explored to enhance the safety of this technique.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Curtis et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: