A randomized comparison of balloon angioplasty versus rotational atherectomy in complex coronary lesions (COBRA study)

Transradial rotablation in a patient with dextrocardia and acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction

An 82-year-old gentleman with situs inversus and dextrocardia was admitted to our unit following thrombolysis for inferior ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Due to ongoing ischemic symptoms, he underwent emergency transradial coronary angiography. His culprit right coronary artery (RCA) was heavily calcified with severe stenosis in the mid and distal segments. Therefore, rotational atherectomy was performed for debulking, and four drug eluting stents were deployed in the RCA. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first reported case of successful transradial rotablation percutaneous coronary intervention in acute STEMI in a patient with dextrocardia. We also did not use temporary pacemaker wire insertion (TPW) because of the risk of right ventricular perforation (RV) in inferior STEMI with RV involvement.

Percutaneous transluminal rotational atherectomy for coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the review on 'Percutaneous transluminal rotational atherectomy for coronary artery disease' first published in The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2003. Percutaneous transluminal coronary rotational atherectomy (PTCRA) debulks atherosclerotic plaque from coronary arteries using an abrasive burr. On rotation, the burr selectively removes hard tissue. PTCRA has been used both as an alternative to and in conjunction with balloon angioplasty to open up blocked coronary arteries. Its ongoing effectiveness and safety compared with other modes of removing atherosclerotic plaques is reviewed. 

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PTCRA for coronary artery disease in patients with non-complex and complex lesions (e.g. ostial, long or diffuse lesions or those arising from in-stent re-stenosis) of the coronary arteries.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review, we searched the Heart Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Library to Issue 2, 2001; and MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Current Contents to December 2002 and reviewed reference lists for relevant articles. For the current review, we searched the same registries from 2002 to 2012 and reviewed reference lists for relevant articles. 

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of PTCRA compared with placebo, no treatment or another intervention and excluded cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the studies identified. Data were extracted independently by two review authors. We asked authors of trials to provide information when missing data were encountered. Statistical summaries used risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials enrolling 3474 patients. The overall risk of bias was unclear for the majority of articles due to a lack of reported data; however, the authors determined that this would be unlikely to impact negatively as most data outcomes were objective (e.g. death vs. no death). There was no evidence of the effectiveness in improving patient outcomes of PTCRA in non-complex lesions. In complex lesions, there were no statistically significant differences in re-stenosis rates at six months (RR 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.33) and at one year (RR 1.21; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55) in those receiving PTCRA with adjunctive balloon angioplasty (PTCA) (PTCRA/PTCA) compared to those receiving PTCA alone. Morphological characteristics distinguishing complex lesions have not been examined in parallel-arm randomised controlled trials. The evidence for the effectiveness of PTCRA in in-stent re-stenosis is unclearCompared to angioplasty alone, PTCRA/PTCA did not result in a statistically significant increase in the risk of major adverse cardiac events (myocardial infarction (MI), emergency cardiac surgery or death) during the in-hospital period (RR 1.27; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.90). Compared to angioplasty, PTCRA was associated with nine times the risk of an angiographically detectable vascular spasm (RR 9.23; 95% CI 4.61 to 18.47), four times the risk of perforation (RR 4.28; 95% CI 0.92 to 19.83) and about twice the risk of transient vessel occlusions (RR 2.49; 95% CI 1.25 to 4.99) while angiographic dissections (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.68) and stents used as a bailout procedure (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.87) were less common.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When conventional PTCA is feasible, PTCRA appears to confer no additional benefits. There is limited published evidence and no long-term data to support the routine use of PTCRA in in-stent re-stenosis. Compared to angioplasty alone, PTCRA/PTCA did not result in a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac events, but patients were more likely to experience vascular spasm, perforation and transient vessel occlusion. In certain circumstances (e.g. patients ineligible for cardiac surgery, those with architecturally complex lesions, or those with lesions that fail PTCA), PTCRA may achieve satisfactory re-vascularisation in subsequent procedures.

[The indispensable instrument for rotational atherectomy]

Rotational atherectomy is the treatment of choice for calcified coronary lesions. It should not be used routinely but only in some appropriate cases, especially when the successful deployment of a stent may be uncertain. Complications are rare but serious. Several cases of "off label" use, however, have been reported in the literature without additional complications.

Rotational atherectomy: a "survivor" in the drug-eluting stent era

Mechanical debulking of coronary plaques with rotational atherectomy (RA) has been used for more than 20 years during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Modification of plaque characteristics may be accomplished with selective ablation of inelastic fibrocalcific tissue. The use of RA, though reduced with the development of bare-metal stents (BMS) and even more with drug-eluting stents (DES), has never been completely abandoned. The present review will analyze reasons for conflicting results obtained in large series and randomized trials on this topic in the past, and will identify criteria for an appropriate use in current times.

Stenting of complex lesions: an overview

Contemporary management of coronary artery disease relies increasingly on percutaneous techniques combined with medical therapy. Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can be performed successfully in most lesions, several difficult lesion subsets continue to present unique technical challenges. These complex lesions may be classified according to anatomic criteria, including extensive calcification, thrombus, and chronic occlusions, or by location, such as bifurcations, saphenous vein grafts and unprotected left main. PCI of these lesions often requires novel devices, such as drug-eluting stents, hydrophilic guidewires, distal protection balloons or filters, thrombectomy catheters, rotational atherectomy, and cutting balloons. An integrated approach that combines these devices with specialized techniques and adjunctive pharmacologic agents has greatly improved PCI success rates for these complex lesions.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in heavily calcified lesions using rotational atherectomy and paclitaxel-eluting stents: outcomes at one year

Heavily calcified lesions present a challenge for percutaneous coronary intervention. With rotational atherectomy, it is possible to treat these lesions and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) reduce the risk of restenosis over the long term. This retrospective study investigated clinical outcomes with rotational atherectomy and PESs in 50 consecutive patients with heavily calcified lesions. Mortality and target lesion revascularization at 1 year (median, 14 months; interquartile range, 8.75-25.5 months) were recorded. Some 52% of patients were aged over 70 years, 68% were male, 52% had acute coronary syndrome, 80% had multivessel disease and 44% were receiving abciximab. Two patients died in hospital, three died during follow-up (one cardiac death) and 3 (6%) underwent target lesion revascularization. At 1 year, the survival rate free of cardiac death was 94% and the survival rate free of target lesion revascularization was 94%. These findings demonstrate that the combination of rotational atherectomy and PESs gives excellent results in heavily calcified lesions.

Treatment of calcified ostial disease by rotational atherectomy and adjunctive cutting balloon angioplasty prior to stent implantation

Both heavily calcified and ostial lesions are difficult to deal with by percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) alone. Acute results are often sub-optimal, complications are more frequent, and long-term results are disappointing. Optimal stent deployment may not be possible unless satisfactory lesion dilatation is achieved and the lesion made more compliant. The use of rotational atherectomy and cutting balloon angioplasty to a calcified ostial lesion in the left circumflex coronary artery prior to stent implantation is reported.

An evidence-based approach to the use of rotational and directional coronary atherectomy in the era of drug-eluting stents: when does it make sense?

Advances in percutaneous interventions have profoundly changed the way we manage patients with coronary and peripheral arterial disease. Though the use of stents, particularly drug-eluting stents, is the preferred method for revascularization because of ease of use and lower restenosis rates, there are many short comings. Ostial and bifurcation lesions as well as heavily calcified and tortuous arteries remain problematic. Mechanical debulking with rotational and direct coronary atherectomy may be beneficial in these situations. In this review, we present the general concepts of mechanical debulking and attempt to summarize the available data on its use in the setting of drug-eluting stents. In addition, we will discuss its special role in the management of peripheral arterial disease.

[Rotational ablation: back to the future]

In the late 1980s, many alternative methods to coronary angioplasty were sought, among which rotational ablation was one of the most popular. With the huge development of coronary stents, this technique, however, was progressively left aside. More recently, though, rotational ablation has reappeared as a unique technique for the most calcified lesions and is used in a small but not negligible percentage of patients with success rates over 95% in recent series.

Cutting balloon inflation for drug-eluting stent underexpansion due to unrecognized coronary arterial calcification

Unrecognized calcification is a cause of stent underexpansion which significantly increases the subsequent risks of restenosis and/or stent thrombosis. We describe the use of cutting balloon inflation within the implanted stent which overcame calcific restraint unresponsive to high pressure inflations with non-compliant balloons.

The use of multiple “buddies” during transradial angioplasty in a complex calcified coronary tree

We report our experience in transradial coronary angioplasty on a tortuous, calcified coronary tree in a patient who had been turned down for surgical revascularization. In view of the complexity of the coronary anatomy, successful completion of the procedure required plaque modification with the use of rotational atherectomy in the left anterior descending coronary artery, and the use of an inflated buddy balloon in the circumflex artery. The latter represents a novel, simple, and inexpensive technique, which may allow successful advancing of coronary stents in calcified and tortuous coronary arteries.

Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology

In patients with stable CAD, PCI can be considered a valuable initial mode of revascularization in all patients with objective large ischaemia in the presence of almost every lesion subset, with only one exception: chronic total occlusions that cannot be crossed. In early studies, there was a small survival advantage with CABG surgery compared with PCI without stenting. The addition of stents and newer adjunctive medications improved the outcome for PCI. The decision to recommend PCI or CABG surgery will be guided by technical improvements in cardiology or surgery, local expertise, and patients' preference. However, until proved otherwise, PCI should be used only with reservation in diabetics with multi-vessel disease and in patients with unprotected left main stenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents might change this situation. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS (UA or NSTEMI) have to be stratified first for their risk of acute thrombotic complications. A clear benefit from early angiography (<48 h) and, when needed, PCI or CABG surgery has been reported only in the high-risk groups. Deferral of intervention does not improve outcome. Routine stenting is recommended on the basis of the predictability of the result and its immediate safety. In patients with STEMI, primary PCI should be the treatment of choice in patients presenting in a hospital with PCI facility and an experienced team. Patients with contra-indications to thrombolysis should be immediately transferred for primary PCI, because this might be their only chance for quickly opening the coronary artery. In cardiogenic shock, emergency PCI for complete revascularization may be life-saving and should be considered at an early stage. Compared with thrombolysis, randomized trials that transferred the patients for primary PCI to a 'heart attack centre' observed a better clinical outcome, despite transport times leading to a significantly longer delay between randomization and start of the treatment. The superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis seems to be especially clinically relevant for the time interval between 3 and 12 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms on the basis of its superior preservation of myocardium. Furthermore, with increasing time to presentation, major-adverse-cardiac-event rates increase after thrombolysis, but appear to remain relatively stable after primary PCI. Within the first 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms, both reperfusion strategies seem equally effective in reducing infarct size and mortality. Therefore, thrombolysis is still a viable alternative to primary PCI, if it can be delivered within 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms. Primary PCI compared with thrombolysis significantly reduced stroke. Overall, we prefer primary PCI over thrombolysis in the first 3 h of chest pain to prevent stroke, and in patients presenting 3-12 h after the onset of chest pain, to salvage myocardium and also to prevent stroke. At the moment, there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI. Rescue PCI is recommended, if thrombolysis failed within 45-60 min after starting the administration. After successful thrombolysis, the use of routine coronary angiography within 24 h and PCI, if applicable, is recommended even in asymptomatic patients without demonstrable ischaemia to improve patients' outcome. If a PCI centre is not available within 24 h, patients who have received successful thrombolysis with evidence of spontaneous or inducible ischaemia before discharge should be referred to coronary angiography and revascularized accordingly--independent of 'maximal' medical therapy.

Prevention of restenosis after coronary angioplasty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite numerous advances in coronary interventional techniques, the frequent occurrence of restenosis continues to plague interventional cardiology. With the widespread use of drug-eluting stents, there is a need to reexamine critically the roles of the various interventional techniques currently available.

RECENT FINDINGS

Drug-eluting stents have dramatically reduced the rates of restenosis and target vessel revascularization in a wide spectrum of patients with varying lesion morphologies. However, when restenosis does occur, it still tends to be dependent on the same factors that predict restenosis with bare metal stenting. The routine use of drug-eluting stents entails high initial costs to the health care system. Debulking as a means to improve outcomes after angioplasty has not lived up to expectations. Gene therapy is rapidly evolving into a viable means to reduce neointimal proliferation after angioplasty.

SUMMARY

Careful patient selection and attention to the procedure of stent deployment optimize the results of angioplasty with drug-eluting stents. Because of cost considerations, drug-eluting stents should be used in patients who are expected to have the greatest absolute benefit. In this context, when judiciously used, conventional balloon angioplasty and bare metal stenting still have a definite role in the management of patients with obstructive coronary artery disease.

Meta-Analysis of randomized trials of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus atherectomy, cutting balloon atherotomy, or laser angioplasty

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a systematic overview (meta-analysis) of randomized trials of balloon angioplasty versus coronary atherectomy, laser angioplasty, or cutting balloon atherotomy to evaluate the effects of plaque modification during percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND

Several mechanical approaches have been developed that ablate or section atheromatous plaque during percutaneous coronary interventions to optimize acute results, minimize intimal injury, and reduce complications and restenosis.

METHODS

Sixteen trials (9,222 patients) constitute the randomized controlled experience with atherectomy, laser, or atherotomy versus balloon angioplasty with or without coronary stenting. Each trial tested the hypothesis that ablative therapy would result in better clinical or angiographic results than balloon dilation alone.

RESULTS

Short-term death rates (<31 days) were not improved by the use of ablative procedures (0.3% vs. 0.4%, odds ratio [OR] 0.94 [95% confidence interval 0.46 to 1.92]), but periprocedural myocardial infarctions (4.4% vs. 2.5%, OR 1.83 [95% CI 1.43 to 2.34]) and major adverse cardiac events (5.1% vs. 3.3%, OR 1.54 [95% CI 1.25 to 1.89]) were increased. Angiographic restenosis rates (6,958 patients) were not improved with the ablative devices (38.9% vs. 37.4%, OR 1.06 [95% CI 0.97 to 1.17]). No reduction in revascularization rates (25.2% vs. 24.5%, OR 1.04 [95% CI 0.94 to 1.14]) or cumulative adverse cardiac events rates up to one year after treatment were seen with ablative devices (27.8% vs. 26.1%, OR 1.09 [95% CI 0.99 to 1.20]).

CONCLUSIONS

The combined experience from randomized trials suggests that ablative devices failed to achieve predefined clinical and angiographic outcomes. This meta-analysis does not support the hypothesis that routine ablation or sectioning of atheromatous tissue is beneficial during percutaneous coronary interventions.

Clinical outcome of percutaneous transluminal coronary rotational atherectomy in patients with end-stage renal disease

The clinical results of percutaneous transluminal coronary rotational atherectomy (PTCRA) in dialysis patients were retrospectively evaluated in comparison with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). From 1997 to 2001, 44 consecutive dialysis patients with 61 lesions underwent PTCRA and 55 consecutive dialysis patients underwent CABG. The initial success rate of PTCRA was 98%. The PTCRA group had a shorter hospital stay (13+/-17 vs 60+/-35 days, p=0.0001) and a lower rate of complications (11% vs 42%, p=0.001) than the CABG group. Although neither event-free survival without death nor myocardial infarction (MI) was significantly different between the CABG and PTCRA groups during the mean follow-up period of 21+/-14 months, 20 patients (45%) in the PTCRA group needed repeat revascularization of the target lesion. In conclusion, PTCRA may be a safe alternative modality for revascularization of high-risk CABG candidates, with excellent short-term results although the long-term outcome is inferior to that of CABG because of the higher restenosis rate.

Percutaneous transluminal rotational atherectomy for coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous transluminal coronary rotational atherectomy (PTCRA) debulks atherosclerotic plaque from coronary arteries using an abrasive burr. On rotation, the burr selectively removes hard tissue.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PTCRA for coronary artery disease in patients with non-complex and complex lesions (e.g., ostial, long, or diffuse lesions or those arising from in-stent restenosis) of the coronary arteries.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Heart Group specialised register, the Cochrane Library to Issue 2, 2001, and MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE and Current Contents to December 2002 and reviewed reference lists for relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of PTCRA compared with placebo, no treatment or another intervention and excluded cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two authors. We asked authors of trials to provide information when missing data was encountered. Statistical summaries used risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 9 trials enrolling 3,066 patients. There was no evidence of the effectiveness of PTCRA in non-complex lesions. In complex lesions, there were no statistically significant differences in restenosis rates at 6 months (relative risk 1.00; 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.20) and 1 year (relative risk 1.21; 95% confidence interval =0.95 to 1.55) in those receiving PTCRA with adjunctive PTCA (PTCRA/PTCA) compared to those receiving PTCA alone. Morphological characteristics distinguishing complex lesions have not been examined in parallel-arm randomised controlled trials. There is equivocal evidence of the effectiveness of PTCRA in in-stent restenosis. Compared to angioplasty alone, PTCRA/PTCA did not result in a statistically significant increase in the risk of major adverse cardiac events (myocardial infarction, emergency cardiac surgery or death) during the in-hospital period (relative risk 1.19; 95% confidence interval =0.78 to 1.83). Compared to angioplasty, PTCRA was associated with 9 times the risk of an angiographically-detectable vascular spasm (relative risk 9.23; 95% confidence interval 4.61 to 18.47), 4 times the risk of perforation (relative risk 3.87; 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 18.21) and about 2 times the risk of transient vessel occlusions (relative risk 2.28; 95% confidence interval 1.00, 5.19) while angiographic dissections (relative risk 0.49; 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.75) and stents used as a bailout procedure (relative risk 0.38; 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.65) were less common.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

When conventional PTCA is feasible, PTCRA appears to confer no additional benefits. There is limited published evidence and no long-term data to support the routine use of PTCRA in in-stent restenosis. In certain circumstances (e.g., patients ineligible for cardiac surgery, those with architecturally complex lesions, or those with lesions that fail PTCA), PTCRA may achieve satisfactory revascularisation in subsequent procedures.