Key result
This review summarizes currently available publications on orbital atherectomy for severely calcified coronary lesions and compares them with rotational atherectomy.
Why the study?
Does orbital atherectomy improve outcomes compared to rotational atherectomy in patients with severely calcified coronary lesions undergoing PCI?
Does orbital atherectomy improve outcomes compared to rotational atherectomy in patients with severely calcified coronary lesions undergoing PCI?
This review summarizes the available evidence on orbital atherectomy for severely calcified coronary lesions and compares it with rotational atherectomy.
Evidence on orbital atherectomy remains summarized from existing publications; leaves open need for randomized comparisons with rotational atherectomy.
Despite advances in technology, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of severely calcified coronary lesions remains challenging. Rotational atherectomy is one of the current therapeutic options to manage calcified lesions, but has a limited role in facilitating the dilation or stenting of lesions that cannot be crossed or expanded with other PCI techniques due to unfavourable clinical outcome in long-term follow-up. However the results of orbital atherectomy presented in the ORBIT I and ORBIT II trials were encouraging. In addition to these encouraging data, necessity for sufficient lesion preparation before implantation of bioresorbable scaffolds lead to resurgence in the use of atherectomy. This article summarises currently available publications on orbital atherectomy (Cardiovascular Systems Inc.) and compares them with rotational atherectomy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sotomi et al. (2016) conducted a review in Severely calcified coronary lesions. Orbital atherectomy vs. Rotational atherectomy was evaluated. This review summarizes currently available publications on orbital atherectomy for severely calcified coronary lesions and compares them with rotational atherectomy.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: