Intracoronary lithotripsy use for in-stent restenosis, including multilayer ISR

Innovations in Intracoronary Imaging: Present Clinical Practices and Future Outlooks

Engaging intracoronary imaging (IC) techniques such as intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography enables the precise description of vessel architecture. These imaging modalities have well-established roles in providing guidance and optimizing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) outcomes. Furthermore, IC is increasingly recognized for its diagnostic capabilities, as it has the unique capacity to reveal vessel wall characteristics that may not be apparent through angiography alone. This manuscript thoroughly reviews the contemporary landscape of IC in clinical practice. Focused on current methodologies, the review explores the utility and advancements in IC techniques. Emphasizing their role in clarifying coronary pathophysiology, guiding PCI, and optimizing patient outcomes, the manuscript critically evaluates the strengths and limitations of each modality. Additionally, the integration of IC into routine clinical workflows and its impact on decision-making processes are discussed. By synthesizing the latest evidence, this review provides valuable insights for clinicians, researchers, and healthcare professionals involved in the dynamic field of interventional cardiology.

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.

Procedural and clinical impact of intravascular lithotripsy for the treatment of peri-stent calcification

BACKGROUND

Use of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) for treating peri-stent calcification is increasing. However, this indication remains 'off-label'. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and clinical outcomes of in-stent IVL.

METHODS

Patients from five European centers who underwent in-stent IVL were included between 2019 and 2023. Demographic, clinical, procedural and follow-up data were collected from electronic hospital records. Angiographic and intracoronary imaging (ICI) data were analyzed in a centralized core-laboratory.

RESULTS

Of 101 patients (71.2 ± 9.2 years), 56(55 %) received in-stent IVL for late stent failure (median 109 days post-PCI) due to calcific neoatherosclerosis or extra-stent calcification(late-IVL), while 45(45 %) underwent bail-out IVL due to stent infraexpasion (immediate-IVL). Both late-IVL and immediate-IVL significantly improved angiographic %diameter stenosis (73.7[59.6-89.8]% to 16.4 [10.4-26.9]%;p < 0.0001 and 28.6[22.5-43.3]% to 14.1[10.3-29.4]%;p < 0.0001, and minimum lumen area (MLA) (3.4 ± 1.2 to 8.6 ± 2.5 mm2;p < 0.002 and 5.4 ± 1.9 to 7.3 ± 1.9;p < 0.0001).Device(98 %) and procedural success(80 %) were high. MACE rates in-hospital (2 %), 30-days (3 %),6-months(5 %) and 1-year(7 %) were low and comparable in both groups. Acute diameter gain was lower in immediate-IVL (2.1 ± 0.7 mm vs. 0.5 ± 0.4 mm;p < 0.0001). This, however, was explained by significant differences in pre-IVL angiographic and ICI parameters (%diameter stenosis 73.7[59.6-89.8] vs. 28.6[22.5-43.3]%; p < 0.0001 and MLA (3.4 ± 1.2 vs 5.4 ± 1.9 mm2; p < 0.0001), whereas post-IVL percentage diameter stenosis (16.4(10.4-26.9) vs. 14.1(10.3-29.4);p = 0.914) and MLA (8.6 ± 2.5vs. 7.4 ± 1.9 mm2;p = 0.064) in late- and immediate-IVL were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

IVL in-stent due to peri-stent calcification is an effective strategy, both late and immediately after stent implantation. Overall, MACE rates at short- and mid-term were low and comparable in both groups, although clinical findings should be taken with caution.

Comparative efficacy of interventional therapies and devices for coronary in-stent restenosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

In-stent restenosis (ISR) has become a significant obstacle to interventional therapy for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The optimal percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for patients with coronary ISR remains controversial. This network meta-analysis (NMA) was aimed to compare and estimate the effectiveness of different PCI strategies and commercial devices for the treatment of patients with coronary ISR.

Methods

In present study, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from database inception to October 20, 2022, to identify randomized controlled trials. We included studies comparing various PCI strategies for the treatment of any type of coronary ISR. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42022364308.

Results

We included 44 eligible trials including 8479 patients, 39 trials comparing the treatment effects of 10 PCIs, and 5 trials comparing the efficacy between different types of drug-eluting stent (DES) or drug-coated balloon (DCB) devices. Among the PCIs, everolimus-eluting stent was the optimal strategy considering target lesion revascularization (TLR), percent diameter stenosis (%DS), and binary restenosis (BR), and sirolimus-coated balloon was the optimal strategy considering late lumen loss (LLL). In the comparison of commercial devices, the combination strategy excimer laser coronary angioplasty plus SeQuent Please paclitaxel-coated balloon showed promising therapeutic prospects.

Conclusions

DCB and DES remain the preferred treatment strategies for coronary ISR, considering both the primary clinical outcome (TLR) and the angiographic outcomes (LLL, BR, %DS). Personalized combination interventions including DCB or DES hold promise as a novel potential treatment pattern for coronary ISR.

SCAI Expert Consensus Statement on the Management of Calcified Coronary Lesions

The prevalence of calcification in obstructive coronary artery disease is on the rise. Percutaneous coronary intervention of these calcified lesions is associated with increased short-term and long-term risks. To optimize percutaneous coronary intervention results, there is an expanding array of treatment modalities geared toward calcium modification prior to stent implantation. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, herein, puts forth an expert consensus document regarding methods to identify types of calcified coronary lesions, a central algorithm to help guide use of the various calcium modification strategies, tips for when using each treatment modality, and a look at future studies and trials for treating this challenging lesion subset.

Clinical outcomes of coronary intravascular lithotripsy in patients with stent failure (COIL registry)

BACKGROUND

Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment of calcified de novo coronary lesions. Safety data on the use of IVL within stented segments are lacking. We sought to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and long-term outcomes of IVL in patients with stent failure.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multi-centre registry that included consecutive patients with stent failure who had undergone IVL treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was procedural success defined as residual stenosis <30% (determined by quantitative coronary angiography analysis) in patients who survived hospital admission without in-hospital adverse events. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as the composite endpoints of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularisation at one-year follow up.

RESULTS

102 patients were included in this study. Mean age was 73 ± 9 years and 81% were male. The duration from previous stent implantation and IVL treatment was 24 (interquartile range 7-76) months, of which 10.8% received IVL for acute under-expanded stent. IVL treatment allowed significant improvement in both minimal lumen diameter (1.14 ± 0.60 to 2.53 ± 0.59, P < 0.001) and degree of stenosis (66.8 ± 19.9 to 20.3 ± 11.3%, P < 0.001). The rate of procedural success was 78.4% (80/102 of patients). The one-year MACE was 15.7%. Ostial disease (HR 5.16; 95% CI 1.19 to 22.33; P = 0.028) and lesion length (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10; P = 0.010) were independently associated with one-year MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with stent failure, IVL is a safe and feasible treatment for this high-risk group.

Rotational Atherectomy Versus Intravascular Lithotripsy for Calcified In-Stent Restenosis: A Single-Center Study With 1-Year Follow-Up

Although rotational atherectomy (RA) and intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) have been proved to be effective for calcified de novo coronary lesions, their use in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still controversial. No comparison of these techniques in patients with ISR has been published so far. We sought to evaluate safety and feasibility of RA and IVL in patients with calcified ISR. Furthermore, we aimed to compare in-hospital and 1-year clinical outcomes between both groups. This is a retrospective single-center study evaluating patients with calcified ISR treated with RA (between 2012 and 2021) and IVL (between 2019 and 2021). Inhospital and 1-year clinical outcomes were compared between IVL and RA patients. In total, 28 patients with ISR who underwent RA were compared with 24 ISR subjects after IVL. The procedural success rate was 100% in both the groups. Quantitative coronary analysis demonstrated a similar degree of stenosis prior (66.4 ± 11.4 vs 68.8 ± 19.7, p = nonsignificant [NS]), and after the procedure (21.5 ± 20.5 vs 22.8 ± 12.1, p = NS) with no difference in acute luminal gain (1.34 ± 0.60 vs 1.38 ± 0.59, p = NS). There was one in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular event in the RA group. At 1-year follow-up, no difference was observed with respect to major adverse cardiovascular event rate (14.3% vs 16.7%, p = NS) and target vessel revascularization (7.1% vs 12.5%, p = NS). In conclusion, RA and IVL are safe and feasible techniques for calcified ISR yielding comparable results at 1-year follow-up. Further clinical studies are warranted to confirm our findings and shed more light on patient and lesion characteristics associated with the best outcomes.

Shock and Awe: Successful Revascularization with Intravascular Lithotripsy in Recurrent ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Secondary to Stent Under-Expansion

We report a case of recurrent ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) due to a previously implanted under-expanded stent with in-stent thrombosis refractory to traditional interventional techniques. We underscore the utility of bail-out shockwave intravascular lithotripsy to tackle previously under-expanded stents in this acute setting.

Intracoronary imaging-guided rotational atherectomy combined with intravascular lithotripsy in the treatment of severe coronary artery calcification-A case report

Background

Severe coronary artery calcification increases the difficulty of percutaneous coronary intervention procedures and impairs stent expansion. Herein, we report a case of a patient who was successfully treated with rotational atherectomy using a stepped burr strategy combined with intravascular lithotripsy for plaque modification under intracoronary imaging.

Case summary

A 65 year-old woman presented to our hospital with recurrent chest pain evolving for 1 year. Coronary angiography showed approximately 80% stenosis of the proximal mid-left anterior descending artery. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) revealed a 360° annular calcification. The calcification was rotablated with 1.5 and 1.75 burrs, and the lesion was undilatable with a 3.0 mm non-compliant balloon at 14 atm. Subsequently, the intravascular lithotripsy was reset for the modification of the calcified lesion. A shockwave balloon measuring 3.0 mm × 12 mm was delivered, and 40 pulses were performed at 6 atm. Intravascular imaging modalities (IVUS and OCT) revealed a circumferential calcified plaque with deep fractures. After post-balloon expansion followed by drug-eluting stent placement with a final stent expansion of 84%, there were no intraoperative complications and no major adverse cardiovascular events within 90 days postoperatively.

Conclusion

A combination of rotational atherectomy and intravascular lithotripsy may be an effective and complementary strategy for the treatment of severely calcified lesions that cannot be resolved using a single procedure. However, more clinical studies are required to clarify this finding.

Intravascular Lithotripsy for Acute Stent Under-Expansion and In-Stent Restenosis: A Case Series

Coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) has an incidence of about 10% of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed in the United States. Traditional management strategies for ISR include balloon angioplasty with non-compliant or use of cutting/scoring balloons or atheroablative therapies (like laser and rotational atherectomy), all of which are inherently limited in their ability to treat stent under-expansion or calcification around the stent. Shockwave intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has recently demonstrated safe and efficacious treatment of severely calcified coronary stenoses with reported cases of treating ISR as an off-label use. In this case series, we describe the successful use of IVL for 6 cases of ISR and 1 case of stent under-expansion using 40-80 IVL pulses per lesion. Angiographic success was obtained in all seven patients, and there were no intra-procedural complications or adverse cardiac events at a mean follow-up of 200 days. Our report indicates that IVL can be safely and effectively used to treat ISR and stent under-expansion.