Long-term outcomes following intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) for calcified coronary lesions: A Real-World Multicenter European Study

Comparison of intravascular lithotripsy and rotational atherectomy for the treatment of heavily calcified coronary lesions: the STIFF ( S tenoses with calcificaTIon treated with angioplasty e FF ected with dedicated interventional tools) study

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary interventions in heavily calcified coronary lesions are associated with technical difficulties and the worse prognosis. Lesion preparation is important to reduce complications and improve outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare the results of rotational atherectomy (RA) and intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) at achieving optimal stent implantation using intravascular ultrasound criteria.

METHODS

Retrospective, single-center study comparing patients with heavily calcified coronary lesions that underwent percutaneous coronary interventions using RA or IVL.

RESULTS IN TOTAL

25 patients (13 in the RA group and 12 in the IVL group) were included. Reference vessel diameter was similar between the groups [2.59 (2.51-3.63) mm in the RA group vs. 2.79 (2.59-3.16) mm in the IVL group; P  = 0.89], as were minimal lumen area [1.02 (0.80-1.23) mm vs. 1.40 (1.01-1.40) mm; P  = 0.43] and diameter stenosis [60.4% (52.3-72.3) vs. 56.1% (47.8-61.3); P  = 0.56). The final minimal lumen area was significantly larger in the IVL group [7.6 mm 2 (5.8-8.6) vs. 5.4 mm 2 (4.5-6.2); P  = 0.01] as were lumen area gain [4.1 mm 2 (2.6-5.9) vs. 2.3 mm 2 (1.4-3.6); P  = 0.01] and final stent volume [491.2 mm 3 (372.2-729.8) vs. 326.2 mm 3 (257.1-435.4); P  = 0.03]. In the RA group, 69.2% of the patients achieved the preestablished intravascular ultrasound-based criteria for successful stent implantation, vs. 100% of the patients in the IVL group ( P  = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Patients in the IVL group achieved the Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography-Guided Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation trial criteria of successful stent implantation more frequently than those treated with RA.

Comparison of long-term outcome in patients with in-stent restenosis treated with intravascular lithotripsy or with modified balloon angioplasty

BACKGROUND

Modified balloon angioplasty (MB) using a cutting-/scoring balloon or intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is used in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). However, IVL is an off-label use in this setting. The aim of this subgroup analysis of an all-comers registry was to compare IVL to MB angioplasty in patients with ISR.

METHODS

The subgroup (n = 117) included all patients with an ISR treated by MB or IVL between 2019 and 2021. Primary endpoint was strategy success (< 20% residual stenosis). The secondary endpoint was cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and target lesion failure/revascularization (TVR). Quantitative coronary angiography was performed in all patients.

RESULTS

A total of n = 36 patients were treated by IVL and n = 81 patients by MB. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the groups. The primary endpoint was reached in 99 patients (84.6%). Patients in the IVL group had less residual stenosis (2.8% vs. 21.0%; p = 0.012). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that IVL had a significant positive effect on reaching the primary end point (Estimate 2.857; standard error (SE) 1.166; p = 0.014). During the follow-up period (450 days) there were no significant differences in rates of cardiac death (IVL n = 2 (1.7%) vs. MB n = 3 (2.6%); p = 0.643), AMI (IVL n = 2 (1.7%) vs. MB n = 4 (3.4%); p = 0.999) and TVR (IVL n = 5 (4.3%) vs. MB n = 14 (12%); p = 0.851).

CONCLUSION

IVL results in a significantly lower rate of residual stenosis than MB in patients with ISR. During the long-term follow-up, no differences in rates of cardiac death, AMI or TVR were observed.

Review of intravascular lithotripsy for treating coronary, peripheral artery, and valve calcifications

Management of intracoronary calcium (ICC) continues to be a challenge for interventional cardiologists. There have been significant advances in calcium treatment devices. However, there still exists a knowledge gap regarding which devices to choose for the treatment of ICC. The purpose of this manuscript is to review the principles of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) and clinical data. The technique of IVL will then be compared to alternative calcium treatment devices. Clinical data will be reviewed concerning the treatment of coronary, peripheral artery and valvular calcifications. Controversies to be discussed include how to incorporate IVL into your practice, what is the best approach for treating calcium subtypes, how to approach under-expanded stents, what is the ideal technique for performing IVL, how safe is IVL, whether imaging adds value when performing IVL, and how IVL fits into a treatment program for peripheral arteries and calcified valves.

Comparison of long-term outcome in patients with calcified stenosis treated with intravascular lithotripsy or with modified balloon angioplasty: a propensity score-adjusted study

Background

The aim of this two-center, all-comers registry was to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) to that of modified balloon angioplasty (MB). MB angioplasty using a cutting or scoring balloon is commonly used in patients with calcified coronary arteries. IVL is a new technology for lesion preparation. This is the first study to compare MB with IVL.

Methods

The cohort included all patients treated by MB angioplasty or IVL between 2019 and 2021. The primary endpoint was strategy success (<20% residual stenosis). The secondary endpoint was long-term safety outcomes [cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), target lesion failure/revascularization (TVR)]. Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed in all patients. Primary and secondary endpoints were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) for treatment effect estimation.

Results

A total of n = 86 patients were treated by IVL and n = 92 patients by MB angioplasty. The primary endpoint was reached in 152 patients (85.4%). Patients in the IVL group had less residual stenosis (5.8% vs. 22.8%; p = 0.001) in QCA. Weighted multivariable regression analysis revealed that IVL had a significant positive effect on reaching the primary endpoint of strategy success [odds ratio (OR) 24.58; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 7.40-101.86; p = 0.001]. In addition, severe calcification was shown to result in a lower probability of achieving the primary endpoint (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.02-0.24; p = 0.001). During the follow-up period (450 days) there was no difference in cardiovascular mortality rate [IVL (n = 5) 2.8% vs. MB (n = 3) 1.7%; p = 0.129]. Patients with unstable angina at the time of the index procedure had the highest probability of cardiovascular death [hazard ratio (HR) 7.136; 95% CI 1.248-40.802; p = 0.027]. No differences were found in long-term rates of AMI (IVL 1.7% vs. MB 2.8%; p = 0.399; IVL HR 2.73; 95% CI 0.4-17.0; p = 0.281) or TVR (IVL 5.6% vs. MB 9%; p = 0.186; IVL HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.277-2.166; p = 0.626).

Conclusion

IVL leads to a significantly better angiographic intervention outcome compared to MB angioplasty in our cohort. During long-term follow-up, no differences in cardiovascular mortality, rate of acute myocardial infarction, or target lesion failure/revascularization were observed.