ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Severely calcified coronary lesions present a particular challenge for percutaneous coronary intervention. AIMS: The aim of this randomized study was to determine whether coronary intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is non-inferior to rotational atherectomy (RA) regarding minimal stent area (MSA). METHODS: The randomized, prospective non-inferiority ROTA.shock trial enrolled 70 patients between July 2019 and November 2021. Patients were randomly (1:1) assigned to undergo either IVL or RA before percutaneous coronary intervention of severely calcified coronary lesions. Optical coherence tomography was performed at the end of the procedure for primary endpoint analysis. RESULTS: The primary endpoint MSA was lower but non-inferior after IVL (mean: 6.10 mm2 , 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 5.32-6.87 mm2 ) versus RA (6.60 mm2 , 95% CI: 5.66-7.54 mm2 ; difference in MSA: -0.50 mm2 , 95% CI: -1.52-0.52 mm2 ; non-inferiority margin: -1.60 mm2 ). Stent expansion was similar (RA: 0.83 ± 0.10 vs. IVL: 0.82 ± 0.11; p = 0.79). There were no significant differences regarding contrast media consumption (RA: 183.1 ± 68.8 vs. IVL: 163.3 ± 55.0 mL; p = 0.47), radiation dose (RA: 7269 ± 11288 vs. IVL: 5010 ± 4140 cGy cm2 ; p = 0.68), and procedure time (RA: 79.5 ± 34.5 vs. IVL: 66.0 ± 19.4 min; p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: IVL is non-inferior regarding MSA and results in a similar stent expansion in a random comparison with RA. Procedure time, contrast volume, and dose-area product do not differ significantly.
Subject(s)
Atherectomy, Coronary , Coronary Artery Disease , Lithotripsy , Vascular Calcification , Humans , Atherectomy, Coronary/adverse effects , Atherectomy, Coronary/methods , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Constriction, Pathologic , Prospective Studies , Coronary Angiography/methods , Treatment Outcome , Vascular Calcification/diagnostic imaging , Vascular Calcification/therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of the present study was to evaluate novolimus-eluting BRS (DESolve) as interventional treatment for patients with ACS, and to compare its 12-month outcomes with the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds (Absorb). METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients with ACS (including unstable angina pectoris, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) treated with either the Absorb or the DESolve BRS were evaluated in a 1:1 matched-pair analysis. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization, were evaluated as a major endpoint. The occurrence of scaffold thrombosis was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were eligible for this analysis. The rate of MACE at 12 months was comparable between the Absorb and the DESolve group (8.3% vs. 6.8%, pâ¯= 0.738). The occurrence of target lesion revascularization (6.2% vs. 4.7%; pâ¯= 0.700) and scaffold thrombosis (4.1% vs. 2.1%; pâ¯= 0.580) was comparable as well. All instances of scaffold thrombosis occurred within 30 days of the index procedure. CONCLUSION: In this study, similar 12-month event rates were observed for both BRS types after implantation for the treatment of ACS.
