Coronary Intravascular Lithotripsy Effectiveness and Safety in a Real-World Cohort.

Background: Coronary artery calcification is a predictor of adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is a promising tool for the treatment of calcified lesions. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of IVL. Methods: A single-center observational study of PCI procedure, with assessment of the outcomes of patients undergoing PCI using IVL, was performed. Angiographic procedural success was used as the primary effectiveness endpoint. The primary safety endpoint was defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization within 30 days. Results: A total of 111 patients were included. Indications for PCI spanned the spectrum of chronic (53.2%) and acute coronary syndromes (43%). Lesion preparation before IVL was performed with non-compliant (42%), cutting or OPN (14.4%) balloons and with atherectomy techniques in 11% of procedures. Intravascular imaging was used in 21.6% of procedures. The primary effectiveness endpoint was achieved in 100% and the primary safety endpoint in 3.6% of procedures. Peri-procedural complications were minimal and successfully resolved. Conclusions: IVL was an effective and safe technique for the treatment of calcified coronary lesions. These findings contribute to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of IVL in the management of these challenging scenarios.

The CTo-aBCDE score: A new predictor of success in chronic total occlusions.

INTRODUCTION: Patient selection for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in chronic total occlusions (CTOs) is crucial to procedural success. Our aim was to identify independent predictors of success in CTO PCI in order to create an accurate score. METHODS: In a single-center observational registry of CTO PCI, demographic and clinical data and anatomical characteristics of coronary lesions were recorded. Linear and logistic regression analysis were used to identify predictors of success. A score to predict success was created and its accuracy was measured by receiver operating curve analysis. RESULTS: A total of 377 interventions were performed (334 patients, age 68±11 years, 75% male). The success rate was 65% per patient and 60% per procedure. Predictors of success in univariate analysis were absence of active smoking (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.243-3.29; p=0.005), presence of tapered stump (OR 5.2, 95% CI 2.7-10.2; p<0.001), absence of tortuosity (OR 6.44; 95% CI 3.02-13.75; p<0.001), absence of bifurcation (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.08-3.51; p=0.026), absence of calcification (OR 3.1; 95% CI 3.10-5.41; p<0.001), LAD as target vessel (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0-3.5; p=0.048), and CTO length <20 mm (OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.69-5.3; p<0.001). Only anatomical factors were independent predictors of success, and an anatomical score (0-11 points) with high accuracy (area under the curve 0.831) was subsequently created. A score <3 was associated with low probability of success (15%), 3-8 with intermediate probability (55%), and >8 with high probability (95%). CONCLUSION: In our sample only anatomical characteristics were predictors of success. The creation of a score to predict success, with good accuracy, may enable selection of cases that can be treated by any operator, those in which a dedicated operator will be desirable, and those with an extremely low probability of success, which should be considered individually for conservative management, surgical revascularization or PCI by a team experienced in CTO.

Comparative analysis of fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio: Results of a five-year registry. / Análise comparativa do fractional flow reserve (FFR) e do instantaneous wave­free ratio (iFR): resultados de um registo de 5 anos.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Assessment of coronary lesions by the instantaneous wave free ratio (iFR) has generated significant debate. We aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of iFR and its impact on the decision to use fractional flow reserve (FFR) and on procedural characteristics. METHODS: In this single-center registry of patients undergoing functional assessment of coronary lesions, FFR was used as a reference for assessing the diagnostic performance of iFR. An iFR value <0.86 was considered positive and a value >0.93 was considered negative. RESULTS: Functional testing was undertaken of 402 lesions, of which 154 were assessed with both techniques, 222 with FFR only, and 26 with iFR only. Using a cut-off of ≤0.80 for iFR, the area under the curve was 0.73 (95% CI 0.65-0.81), with an optimal value of ≤0.91. FFR was undertaken in 93 out of 94 lesions with an inconclusive iFR and was performed in 69.1% of the remaining iFR-tested lesions. Concordance between iFR and FFR was 87% (chi-square=22.43; p<0.001). Notwithstanding, there were four out of 13 cases (30.7%) of positive iFR with negative FFR and three out of 42 (7.1%) cases of negative iFR and positive FFR. This difference was significant (p=0.026). iFR had no impact on procedure time, fluoroscopy time or radiation dose. CONCLUSION: iFR had a reasonable diagnostic performance. Operators often chose to perform FFR despite conclusive iFR results. iFR and FFR were highly concordant, but a non-negligible proportion of lesions classified as ischemic by iFR were classified as non-ischemic by FFR. iFR had no impact on procedural characteristics.