Key result
Planned rotational atherectomy was associated with a lower incidence of coronary dissection compared to bailout rotational atherectomy (6.5% vs 22.4%), but showed no significant difference in long-term major adverse cardiac events (HR 1.12).
Why the study?
The study was conducted to compare in-hospital and long-term outcomes between bailout rotational atherectomy and planned rotational atherectomy in patients undergoing PCI.
Does bailout rotational atherectomy compared to planned rotational atherectomy affect MACE and procedural complications in patients undergoing PCI?
Cohort (n=211)
No
Does bailout rotational atherectomy compared to planned rotational atherectomy affect MACE and procedural complications in patients undergoing PCI?
Planned rotational atherectomy is associated with shorter procedural times and fewer coronary dissections compared to bailout atherectomy, without differences in MACE or mortality.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Planned RA was associated with fewer dissections and shorter procedures without MACE difference; leaves open optimal upfront use in calcified lesions.
The goal of this study was to compare in-hospital and long-term events between bailout rotational atherectomy (RA) and planned RA. In this retrospective study, All patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using RA at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from November 2011 to December 2018 were enrolled in this study. Planned RA was defined as RA performed immediately before balloon pre-dilation, while bailout RA was defined as RA after failure to expand the balloon or perform any other procedure. In-hospital and long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE, defined as cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and stroke) were compared between the two groups. After statistical analysis, a total of 211 patients underwent PCI with RA during the study period: 153 in the planned RA group, and 58 in the bailout group. The incidence of coronary dissection was significantly higher in the bailout RA group than in the planned RA group (22.4% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.001). However, no significant difference in in-hospital MACE was found between the two groups (12.1% vs. 13.7%, P = 0.752). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (9.1% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.504) or long-term MACE (13.8% vs. 17.1%, P = 0.560) between the groups. Bailout RA was associated with a significantly longer procedural time (139.86 ± 56.24 min vs. 105.56 ± 36.71 min, P < 0.001) than planned RA. Therefore, compared with bailout RA, planned RA is associated with shorter procedural time and reduced incidence of coronary dissection, with no difference in MACE or mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qi et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Coronary heart disease with heavily calcified lesions (n=211). Planned rotational atherectomy vs. Bailout rotational atherectomy was evaluated on Long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.49-2.56, p=0.784). Planned rotational atherectomy was associated with a lower incidence of coronary dissection compared to bailout rotational atherectomy (6.5% vs 22.4%), but showed no significant difference in long-term major adverse cardiac events (HR 1.12).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: