Coronary intravascular lithotripsy and rotational atherectomy for severely calcified stenosis: Results from the ROTA.shock trial.

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.

Everolimus- vs. novolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

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%, p = 0.738). The occurrence of target lesion revascularization (6.2% vs. 4.7%; p = 0.700) and scaffold thrombosis (4.1% vs. 2.1%; p = 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.

[Procedural aspects in primary PCI: arterial access, stent selection, thrombectomy and treatment of non-culprit lesions]. / Prozedurale Aspekte im Rahmen der primären PCI: Arterieller Zugang, Stentselektion, Thrombektomie, Behandlung der Non-culprit-Läsionen.

Acute myocardial infarction was one of the most common causes of death in Germany in 2011. According to the guidelines of the European Society for Cardiology, systemic fibrinolysis and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are the methods of choice for acute treatment. Primary PCI should be given priority due to its superiority. The transradial access should be preferred due to the lower bleeding complication rate. In the selection of stents the new generation of drug-eluting stents (DES) are superior to the first generation of bare metal stents (BMS). It has now been demonstrated that the incident rates of DES (e.g. mortality, target vessel revascularization, early and late stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction) are significantly lower. For bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) long-term results for the use in treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are not yet available but initial results are very promising. However, the selection of a stent needs to be done on an individual basis in order to do justice to all aspects. Data with respect to thrombectomy in acute treatment are heterogeneous. Currently, a thorough consideration of all aspects is necessary because thrombus aspiration can also be associated with an increased rate of incidents. In a state of hemodynamic stability only so-called culprit lesions should currently be treated with a stent. Elective interventions on further stenoses should be carried out after consideration of individual factors and if necessary evaluation of the hemodynamic relevance.