Why the study?
The safety and efficacy of rotational atherectomy in patients with a reduced LVEF had not been clearly evaluated.
Does reduced LVEF worsen outcomes in patients with severe coronary artery calcification undergoing rotational atherectomy?
Does reduced LVEF worsen outcomes in patients with severe coronary artery calcification undergoing rotational atherectomy?
While procedural success of rotational atherectomy is similar regardless of LVEF, patients with LVEF ≤35% have a significantly higher risk of 2-year MACE.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of rotational atherectomy (RA) in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: In total, 140 consecutive patients with severe coronary artery calcification (CAC) who underwent RA were retrospectively enrolled. Patients were grouped based on LVEF: ≤35% (n = 10), 36% to 50% (n = 11), and >50% (n = 119). We assessed procedural success and periprocedural complication rates as well as the incidences of in-hospital and 2-year major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as hospitalization for myocardial infarction and worsening heart failure, target vessel revascularization, and cardiac death. RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in nearly all patients in each group. Most periprocedural complications were minor, and major complications were uncommon. The 2-year MACE rate was significantly higher in the LVEF ≤35% than LVEF >50% group (40.0% vs. 6.7%, respectively). Multivariable regression analysis revealed that the LVEF was the only independent predictor of 2-year MACEs in patients who underwent RA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a reduced LVEF who underwent RA had procedural success rates similar to those of patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function. The LVEF might be an independent predictor of 2-year MACEs in patients with severe CAC after percutaneous coronary intervention following RA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: