Key result
Atherectomy and intravascular lithotripsy provided comparable technical success (96% vs 97%), freedom from target lesion revascularization (90% vs 91%), and limb salvage (97% vs 95%).
Why the study?
To synthesize and critically appraise published outcomes of atherectomy and intravascular lithotripsy for symptomatic common femoral artery atherosclerosis to support clinical decision-making.
Does intravascular lithotripsy compared to atherectomy improve outcomes in adults with symptomatic common femoral artery atherosclerosis?
Meta-Analysis
Does intravascular lithotripsy compared to atherectomy improve outcomes in adults with symptomatic common femoral artery atherosclerosis?
Absolute Event Rate: 96% vs 97%
Atherectomy and intravascular lithotripsy provide comparable short- to mid-term efficacy for symptomatic common femoral artery atherosclerosis, allowing for clinician discretion in device selection.
Comparable efficacy supports clinician discretion in device selection for common femoral lesions; confirms similar outcomes versus atherectomy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bouchareine et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Symptomatic common femoral artery (CFA) atherosclerosis. Atherectomy vs. Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) was evaluated on Technical success. Atherectomy and intravascular lithotripsy provided comparable technical success (96% vs 97%), freedom from target lesion revascularization (90% vs 91%), and limb salvage (97% vs 95%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: