Intravascular lithotripsy in calcified-coronary lesions: A real-world observational, European multicenter study.
calcified lesion
drug-eluting stent
intravascular lithotripsy
rotational atherectomy
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2021
01 08 2021
Historique:
revised:
12
08
2020
received:
18
06
2020
accepted:
31
08
2020
pubmed:
17
9
2020
medline:
21
10
2021
entrez:
16
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The recently introduced intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) appears promising and relatively safer than conventional approaches when dealing with calcified lesions. Although there are published reports on this novel technology, data from the real world are limited. In this study, we aim to report on the experience of IVL from a real-world population derived from six European centers that undertake high-volume complex coronary interventions. We enrolled all patients treated with IVL between November 2018 and February 2020 at six centers. Procedural success and complications were assessed along with clinical outcomes, which included: cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (composite of cardiac death, TVMI, and TLR). Hundred and ninety patients (200 lesions) with a mean age of 72 years were treated using IVL. Diabetes and chronic kidney disease were present in 50% (n = 95) and 16% (n = 30) of cases, respectively. Acute-coronary syndromes accounted for 91 (48%) of the cases. Most were de-novo lesions (77%; n = 154). Upfront use of IVL occurred in 26% of cases, while the rest were bail-out procedures due to inadequate predilatation with conventional balloons. Adjuvant rotational atherectomy was needed in 17% of cases. Procedural success was achieved in 99% of cases with a complication rate of 3%. During the median follow-up of 222 days, there was two cardiac deaths (1%), one case of TVMI (0.5%), 3 TLR (1.5%) taking the MACE rate to 2.6%. Use of IVL appears to be safe and effective in dealing with calcified-coronary lesions. A high success rate was observed with low procedural complications and event rates.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The recently introduced intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) appears promising and relatively safer than conventional approaches when dealing with calcified lesions. Although there are published reports on this novel technology, data from the real world are limited. In this study, we aim to report on the experience of IVL from a real-world population derived from six European centers that undertake high-volume complex coronary interventions.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We enrolled all patients treated with IVL between November 2018 and February 2020 at six centers. Procedural success and complications were assessed along with clinical outcomes, which included: cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI), target lesion revascularisation (TLR), and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (composite of cardiac death, TVMI, and TLR). Hundred and ninety patients (200 lesions) with a mean age of 72 years were treated using IVL. Diabetes and chronic kidney disease were present in 50% (n = 95) and 16% (n = 30) of cases, respectively. Acute-coronary syndromes accounted for 91 (48%) of the cases. Most were de-novo lesions (77%; n = 154). Upfront use of IVL occurred in 26% of cases, while the rest were bail-out procedures due to inadequate predilatation with conventional balloons. Adjuvant rotational atherectomy was needed in 17% of cases. Procedural success was achieved in 99% of cases with a complication rate of 3%. During the median follow-up of 222 days, there was two cardiac deaths (1%), one case of TVMI (0.5%), 3 TLR (1.5%) taking the MACE rate to 2.6%.
CONCLUSION
Use of IVL appears to be safe and effective in dealing with calcified-coronary lesions. A high success rate was observed with low procedural complications and event rates.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
225-235Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Wong ND, Kouwabunpat D, Vo AN, et al. Coronary calcium and atherosclerosis by ultrafast computed tomography in asymptomatic men and women: relation to age and risk factors. Am Heart J. 1994;127(2):422-430.
Goel M, Wong ND, Eisenberg H, Hagar J, Kelly K, Tobis JM. Risk factor correlates of coronary calcium as evaluated by ultrafast computed tomography. Am J Cardiol. 1992;70(11):977-980.
Maehara A, Stone GW, Généreux P. Coronary artery calcification pathogenesis and prognostic implications. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(17):1703-1714.
Savage MP, Goldberg S, Hirshfeld JW, et al. Clinical and angiographic determinants of primary coronary angioplasty success. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;17(1):22-28.
Madhavan MV, Tarigopula M, Mintz GS, Maehara A, Stone GW, Généreux P. Coronary artery calcification: pathogenesis and prognostic implications. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1703-1714.
Bourantas CV, Zhang YJ, Garg S, et al. Prognostic implications of coronary calcification in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease treated by percutaneous coronary intervention: a patient-level pooled analysis of 7 contemporary stent trials. Heart. 2014;100:1158-1164.
Lee MS, Shah N. The impact and pathophysiologic consequences of coronary artery calcium deposition in percutaneous coronary interventions. J Invasive Cardiol. 2016;28:160-167.
Tan K, Sulke N, Taub N, Sowton E. Clinical and lesion morphologic determinants of coronary angioplasty success and complications: current experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25(4):855-865.
Barbato E, Shlofmitz E, Milkas A, Shlofmitz R, Azzalini L, Colombo A. State of the art: evolving concepts in the treatment of heavily calcified and undilatable coronary stenoses-from debulking to plaque modification, a 40-year-long journey. EuroIntervention. 2017;13:696-705.
Reifart N, Vandormael M, Krajcar M, et al. Randomized comparison of angioplasty of complex coronary lesions at a single center. Excimer laser, rotational Atherectomy, and balloon angioplasty comparison (ERBAC) study. Circulation. 1997;96:91-98.
de Waha S, Allali A, Buttner HJ, et al. Rotational atherectomy before paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in complex calcified coronary lesions: two-year clinical outcome of the randomized ROTAXUS trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;87:691-700.
Mauri L, Bonan R, Weiner BH, et al. Cutting balloon angioplasty for the prevention of restenosis: results of the cutting balloon global randomized trial. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:1079-1083.
Moreno R, Fernández C, Hernández R, et al. Drug-eluting stent thrombosis: results from a pooled analysis including 10 randomized studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:954-959.
Mauri L, O'Malley AJ, Popma JJ, et al. Comparison of thrombosis and restenosis risk from stent length of sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stents. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95:1140-1145.
Iakovou I, Schmidt T, Bonizzoni E, et al. Incidence, predictors and outcome of thrombosis after succesful implantation of drug-eluting stents. Jama. 2005;293:2126-2130.
Costa JR Jr, Sousa A, Moreira AC, et al. Incidence and predictors of very late (>or=4 years) major cardiac adverse events in the desire (drug-eluting stents in the real world)-late registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:12-18.
Latib A, Mussardo M, Ielasi A, et al. Long-term outcomes after the percutaneous treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:155-164.
Chaussy C, Schüller J, Schmiedt E, Brandl H, Jocham D, Liedl B. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of urolithiasis. Urology. 1984;23(5 Spec):59-66.
Schmiedt E, Chaussy C. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy of kidney and ureteric stones. Urol Int. 1984;39(4):193-198.
Leighton TG, Cleveland RO. Lithotripsy. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H, J Eng Med. 2010;224(2):317-342.
Brinton TJ, Ali ZA, Hill JM, et al. Feasibility of shockwave coronary intravascular lithotripsy for the treatment of calcified coronary stenoses. Circulation. 2019;139:834-836.
Kassimis G, Raina T, Kontogiannis N, et al. How should we treat heavily calcified coronary artery disease in contemporary practice? From Atherectomy to intravascular lithotripsy. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2019;20(12):1172-1183.
Sorini Dini C, Nardi G, Ristalli F, Mattesini A, Hamiti B, Di Mario C. Contemporary approach to heavily calcified coronary lesions. Interv Cardiol. 2019;14(3):154-163.
Serruys PW, Katagiri Y, Onuma Y. Shaking and breaking calcified plaque: Lithoplasty, a breakthrough in interventional armamentarium? JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(8):907-911.
Natalia M, Forero T, Daemen J. Coronary calcified lesions the coronary intravascular lithotripsy system. Interv Cardiol Rev. 2019;14(3):174-181.
Wong B, El-Jack S, Newcombe R, Glenie T, Armstrong G, Khan A. Shockwave intravascular lithotripsy for calcified coronary lesions: first real-world experience. J Invasive Cardiol. 2019;31(3):46-48.
Aksoy A, Salazar C, Becher MU, et al. Intravascular lithotripsy in calcified lesions: a prospective, observational. Multicenter Registry Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(11):e008154.
Ali ZA, Brinton TJ, Hill JM, et al. Optical coherence tomography characterization of coronary Lithoplasty for treatment of calcified lesions: first description. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(8):897-906.
Yeoh J, Hill J. Intracoronary lithotripsy for the treatment of calcified plaque. Interv Cardiol Clin. 2019;8(4):411-424.
Wong B, El-Jack S, Newcombe R, Glenie T, Armstrong G, Khan A. Treatment of heavily calcified unprotected left Main disease with lithotripsy: the first case series. J Invasive Cardiol. 2019;31(6):E143-E147.
Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87-165.
Thygesen K, Alpert JS, White HD. Universal definition of myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:2173-2195.
Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation. 2007;115:2344-2351.
Cutlip DE, Nakazawa G, Krucoff MW, et al. Autopsy validation study of the academic research consortium stent thrombosis definition. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(5):554-559.
Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1315-1323.
Stone GW, Midei M, Newman W, et al. Randomized comparison of everolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents: two-year clinical follow-up from the clinical evaluation of the Xience V Everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions (SPIRIT) III trial. Circulation. 2009;119(5):680-686.
Windecker S, Serruys PW, Wandel S, et al. Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisation (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2008;372:1163-1173.
Takasawa Y, Iijima R, Shiba M, Nakamura M, Sugi K. Predictor of subsequent target lesion revascularization in patients with drug-eluting stent restenosis undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:391-396.
Mintz GS, Popma JJ, Pichard AD, et al. Patterns of calcification in coronary artery disease. A statistical analysis of intravascular ultrasound and coronary angiography in 1155 lesions. Circulation. 1995;91(7):1959-1965.