Propensity-score-matched comparison of safety, efficacy, and outcome of intravascular lithotripsy versus high-pressure PTCA in coronary calcified lesions

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.

Efficacy of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) in coronary stenosis with severe calcification: A multicenter systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With heavily calcified coronary and peripheral artery lesions, lesion preparation is crucial before stent placement to avoid underexpansion, associated with stent thrombosis or restenosis and patency failure in the long-term. Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) technology disrupts superficial and deep calcium by using localized pulsative sonic pressure waves, making it to a promising tool for patients with severe calcification in coronary bed.

AIMS

The aim of the study is to systematically review and summarize available data regarding the safety and efficacy of IVL for lesion preparation in severely calcified coronary arteries before stenting.

METHODS

This study was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. We systematically searched PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases from their inception to February 23, 2023, for studies assessing the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing IVL before stent implantation. The diameter of the vessel lumen before and after IVL, as well as stent implantation, were analyzed. The occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was assessed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis comprised 38 studies including 2977 patients with heavily calcified coronary lesions. The mean age was 72.2 ± 9.1 years, with an overall IVL clinical success of 93% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91%-95%, I2 = 0%) and procedural success rate of 97% (95% CI: 95%-98%, I2 = 73.7%), while the in-hospital and 30-days incidence of MACE, myocardial infarction (MI), and death were 8% (95% CI: 6%-11%, I2 = 84.5%), 5% (95% CI: 2%-8%, I2 = 85.6%), and 2% (95% CI: 1%-3%, I2 = 69.3%), respectively. There was a significant increase in the vessel diameter (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.77-3.17, I2 = 96%) and a decrease in diameter stenosis (SMD: -3.44, 95% CI: -4.36 to -2.52, I2 = 97.5%) immediately after IVL application, while it was observed further reduction in diameter stenosis (SMD: -6.57, 95% CI: -7.43 to -5.72, I2 = 95.8%) and increase in the vessel diameter (SMD: 4.37, 95% CI: 3.63-5.12, I2 = 96.7%) and the calculated lumen area (SMD: 3.23, 95% CI: 2.10-4.37, I2 = 98%), after stent implantation. The mean acute luminal gain following IVL and stent implantation was estimated to be 1.27 ± 0.6 and 1.94 ± 1.1 mm, respectively. Periprocedural complications were rare, with just a few cases of perforations, dissection, or no-reflow phenomena recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

IVL seems to be a safe and effective strategy for lesion preparation in severely calcified lesions before stent implantation in coronary arteries. Future prospective studies are now warranted to compare IVL to other lesion preparation strategies.

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.