Key result
Intravascular lithotripsy during protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in significantly higher post-procedural mean arterial pressure compared to rotational atherectomy (86 mmHg vs 73.8 mmHg, p=0.04).
Why the study?
Treating heavily calcified vessels is challenging in patients with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction, where percutaneous mechanical circulatory support is increasingly used during high-risk PCI.
Does intravascular lithotripsy improve peri-interventional hemodynamic stability compared to rotational atherectomy in patients undergoing protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention?
Observational (n=25)
No
Does intravascular lithotripsy improve peri-interventional hemodynamic stability compared to rotational atherectomy in patients undergoing protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention?
Absolute Event Rate: 86% vs 73.8%
p-value: p=0.04
Intravascular lithotripsy combined with pMCS during high-risk PCI may provide better hemodynamic stability and lower MACE rates compared to rotational atherectomy.
Background Treating heavily calcified vessels is a challenging task in patients with an impaired left ventricular ejection fraction. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) is increasingly used in patients in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HRPCI). Methods In this retrospective registry, we investigated 25 patients undergoing a protected HRPCI receiving either intravascular lithotripsy (IVL + pMCS; n = 11) or rotational atherectomy (RA + pMCS; n = 14). The primary endpoint was defined as peri-interventional hemodynamic stability. The secondary endpoint was defined as major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results Patients in the IVL + pMCS group had a significantly higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) at the end of the procedure (p = 0.04). However, the Δ-change in MAP was not significant [−12 mmHg (±20.3) vs. −16.1 mmHg (±23.9), p = 0.709]. The proportion of patients requiring post-interventional catecholamines was significantly lower in the IVL + pMCS group (p = 0.02). The Δ-change in Syntax Score was not significant between groups (IVL + pMCS −22 (±5.8) vs. RA + pMCS −21.2 (±7.6), p = 0.783). MACE did occur less in the group of IVL + pMCS (0% vs. 20%, p = 0.046). Patients with pMCS insertion as a bailout strategy had a higher probability for in-hospital death (p < 0.001) and the occurrence of the slow-reflow phenomenon was associated with long-term mortality (p = 0.021) in the cox regression analysis. Conclusions In our cohort patients in the IVL + pMCS group were hemodynamically more stable which led to a lower rate of catecholamine usage. pMCS as a bailout strategy was associated with in-hospital death and the occurrence of the slow reflow phenomenon with all-cause mortality during follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krause et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Severe calcified coronary artery disease requiring high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (n=25). Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) + percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) vs. Rotational atherectomy (RA) + pMCS was evaluated on Peri-interventional hemodynamic stability (post-PCI mean arterial pressure in mmHg) (p=0.04). Intravascular lithotripsy during protected high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention resulted in significantly higher post-procedural mean arterial pressure compared to rotational atherectomy (86 mmHg vs 73.8 mmHg, p=0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: