ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of coronary orbital atherectomy (OA) for treatment of ostial lesions are not yet fully established. We sought to evaluate (OA) treatment of severely calcified ostial and non-ostial lesions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of subjects treated with OA for severely calcified ostial and non-ostial lesions, at the Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, Florida (MSMCMB) from January 2014 to September 2020, was completed. Study baseline characteristics, lesion and vessel characteristics, procedural outcomes, and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: A total of 609 patients that underwent PCI with OA were identified. The majority of patients (81.9 %) had non-ostial lesions, while 16.6 % had ostial lesions (of which 2.8 % classified as aorto-ostial) and 1.5 % had unknown lesion anatomy. The mean age of the overall cohort was 74.0 ± 9.3 years, and 63.5 % were male. All patients received drug-eluting stent (DES) placement, and the overall freedom from MACE was 98.5 %, with no significant difference observed between the ostial and non-ostial groups. The freedom from cardiac death and MI was also similar between the two groups. There were low rates of bleeding complications and severe angiographic complications, and no persistent slow flow/no reflow was reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated no significant differences in in-hospital MACE outcomes between patients with ostial versus non-ostial lesions, indicating that OA is a safe and effective treatment option for both lesion types, including those classified as aorto-ostial.
Subject(s)
Atherectomy, Coronary , Coronary Artery Disease , Drug-Eluting Stents , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Vascular Calcification , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Coronary Artery Disease/etiology , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Vascular Calcification/diagnostic imaging , Vascular Calcification/therapy , Vascular Calcification/etiology , Atherectomy, Coronary/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Coronary Angiography , AtherectomyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared computed tomography (CT)-derived three-dimensional (3D) modeling versus two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for left atrial appendage occluder (LAAO) device planning. BACKGROUND: LAAO device planning is commonly performed with TEE. However, procedures often require multiple devices and deployments due to inaccurate sizing from TEE. The use of CT three-dimensional (3D) models for LAAO device planning may improve accuracy. METHODS: Four clinical studies that reported procedural and clinical outcomes for CT-derived 3D modeling versus TEE for LAAO device planning were identified. End points were accurate device sizing, procedure failure, number of devices used per procedure, fluoroscopy time, and post-procedure leak. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods. RESULTS: A total of 166 participants were included. When compared with conventional imaging, the use of 3D printed models was associated with less fluoroscopy time (MD -6.98 minutes, 95% CI -12.68 to -1.28, p=0.02) and lower risk of occluder device peri-prosthetic leak (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.73, p=0.01) for LAAO. There were signals towards lower number of devices per procedure (MD -0.56 devices, 95% CI -1.16-0.05, p=0.07) and less total procedure time (MD -13.50 minutes, 95% CI -28.14-1.14, p=0.07) with printed modeling for LAAO. There was no difference between modalities in rates of procedure failure. CONCLUSIONS: CT-derived 3D printed models for LAAO device planning may offer the advantages of lower LAAO device peri-prosthetic leak and less fluoroscopy time when compared with conventional TEE guidance.
