Key result
Intravascular lithotripsy shows no benefit over balloon angioplasty for procedural success or in-hospital MACE.
Why the study?
The efficacy of intravascular lithotripsy compared to conventional balloon angioplasty prior to drug-eluting stent implantation in severely calcified coronary lesions is largely unknown.
Does intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) pretreatment improve procedural success compared to conventional balloon angioplasty in patients with severely calcified coronary disease undergoing PCI?
RCT (n=60)
1:1
Does intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) pretreatment improve procedural success compared to conventional balloon angioplasty in patients with severely calcified coronary disease undergoing PCI?
In patients with severely calcified coronary lesions, IVL pretreatment did not significantly increase overall procedural success compared to conventional balloon angioplasty, but it did eliminate the need for bailout calcium modification.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
IVL does not significantly raise procedural success in calcified PCI; leaves open whether it reduces bailout needs in larger trials.
OBJECTIVES: Severe coronary calcification is a predictor for procedural failure during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) delivers acoustic pressure waves to modify coronary calcification to optimize stent results. The efficacy of IVL compared to conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) prior to drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is largely unknown. This study aimed to compare pretreatment with IVL vs BA for severely calcified coronary lesions prior to DES implantation. METHODS: A total of 60 patients with severely calcified coronary disease undergoing PCI were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to conventional BA or IVL pretreatment groups. The primary efficacy endpoint was procedural success (successful stent implantation without bailout calcium modification devices, no major angiographic complications, and residual stenosis less than 20%). The primary safety endpoint was freedom from in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including death, periprocedural myocardial infarction, stroke, and target vessel revascularization/target lesion failure. RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in 15 (55.6%) patients in the BA group and 24 (72.7%) patients in the IVL group (P = .165). Requirement for bailout calcium modification was higher in the BA group (22.2% vs 0.0%; P = .004). The primary safety endpoint was achieved in 26 (96.3%) patients in the BA group and 30 (90.9%) patients in the IVL group (P = .405). CONCLUSIONS: In PCI of severely calcified coronary disease, no significant differences in procedural success or in-hospital MACE were identified when comparing IVL to conventional BA pretreatment. There was a higher need for additional dedicated calcium modification observed with conventional BA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wong et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Severely calcified coronary disease (n=60). Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) vs. Conventional balloon angioplasty (BA) was evaluated on Procedural success (successful stent implantation without bailout calcium modification devices, no major angiographic complications, and residual stenosis less than 20%) (p=.165). Intravascular lithotripsy did not significantly improve procedural success (72.7% vs 55.6%; P=0.165) or freedom from in-hospital MACE (90.9% vs 96.3%; P=0.405) compared to balloon angioplasty.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: